OBSTACLES 


II 


AND 


OBJECTIONS 

TO THE CAUSE OF 


PERMANENT AND UNIVERSAL 


PEACE 

CONSIDERED, 

BY A LAYMAN. 


r-’ 


“Search the Scripture*.” 


BOSTON: 

Printed and Published for the 

AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETIES. 

JBY D. K. HITCHCOCIC. 


1837. 






NOTICE. 

The substance of the following pages was first published in a 
series of numbers in the Christian Mirror, of Portland, Maine, 
and the New-England Spectator, of Boston, Mass. They have 
now been corrected, and somewhat abridged, by the author, and 
are offered to the Christian public in general, and to the friends 
of Peace in particular, hoping that they may be instrumental in 
removing some of the obstacles to the cause of Peace, and an¬ 
swering some of the objections which are brought against the 
principles of Peace as laid down in the Gospel. It is proper, 
also, to state that this pamphlet has not received the sanction of 
the Executive Committee of the American Peace Society, but is 
published by the author on his own responsibility. 

Boston, April 3 , 1837 . 


369 






Cl'7 

« 


OBSTACLES AND OBJECTIONS 

TO THE 

CAUSE OF PEACE. 


SECTION I. 

Introduction. 

In the course of my peregrinations through the country, 1 fall 
in with minds of every description; and almost every one of 
them has some objection to urge against the Peace Society, either 
as to its principles or its measures. For some, our principles are 
too high — quite ultra. “ They have no notion of spiking all our 
cannon, levelling our fortifications, disbanding our army, abolish¬ 
ing the militia system, and trusting to the providence of God 
and moral power alone for protection.” On the other hand, 
we are met by the objection that “ our principles are too low, — 
that the American Peace Society is quite a weak affair; and 
that it will never do any good until it shall raise its standard 
higher. They have no opinion of a fight-a-little society, any 
more than they have of a drink-a-little society — that total absti¬ 
nence from all war is the only remedy for its legion of evils, 
both temporal and eternal; and that a Christian should never 
take the sword, even to preserve his own life, or the life of his 
family.” 

Now it is very evident that neither of these objectors have 
read the circular letter of the American Peace Society, published 
when the society first went into operation, and which was to serve 

J 





4 


as an exposition of its views and sentiments; if he had, he 
would have seen that by joining the peace society, he does not 
pledge himself to support the non-resistance principle. He may 
oppose war on his own ground as a fruitful source of misery, 
both temporal and eternal; and that whatever may be his private 
sentiments, he may give the weight of his influence against all 
wars of ambition, conquest, agression or retaliation. There is 
no danger of making the world too peaceable; and as no man ever 
yet was hurt by total abstinence from all that can intoxicate, so 
no nation ever yet was hurt by total abstinence from all war. 

It ought not, however, to be suppressed, that most of the lead¬ 
ers in the peace cause are in favor of total abstinence; and that 
almost all of those who have looked into the subject by the light 
of the gospel, have been brought, often reluctantly and to their 
own surprise, to adopt the total abstinence principle as the only 
safe one for a Christian. Let any' one who has any doubts on 
this subject, take the gospel and study it prayerfully and dili¬ 
gently in reference to peace and war, and let him improve what 
light he has by acting in the cause of Peace, and he will have 
more light, and will find that his dreaded difliculties were but 
bugbears, and that it is safest to follow the precepts of Christ, 
wherever they may lead us. 

To those who think the Peace society does not go far enough, 
I would say. Although yon may be able to digest strong meat, 
you should not despise him that eateth herbs only ; some, for 
the present, are not able to bear strong meat, but must be fed 
with milk. Strong meat is to strengthen them that are of a full 
age. (See Rom. xiv. 2, 3. 1 Cor. iii. 2. Heb. v. 12.) 

In the contest which the friends of peace are carrying on with 
the powers of darkness, they have need of all the help which 
they can get. Men do not very suddenly give up the prejudices 
of their education ; and as almost the whole community were 
once in favor of war, in some shape or other, we cannot expect a 
very sudden change. And indeed, the change is so insensible, 
that most individuals in whom it is going on are hardly aware 
of it, but think they remain of the same opinion, when they 
have very materially changed. It is very seldom that a man 
can point out the precise moment when his mind changed from 
one side of a question to the other. I last winter heard the 


5 


venerable founder of the Massachusetts Peace Society say that he 
had adopted the principle of total abstinence from all war for only 
about ten years past. Consequently, he must have been in the 
dark respecting the lawfulness of defensiv^e war for about ten 
years, though he was all the while a most devoted advocate of 
the cause of Peace. I can hardly tell when my own mind 
changed. All I can say is, “ whereas I was once blind, now I see.” 
And the light has been growing brighter and brighter for the 
past ten years, and I cannot say that it is yet noon. 

I believe that the objections above referred to are often raised 
on both sides, for an excuse to the conscience for a neglect of a 
known duty : for if our principles are too high, why not form a 
peace society on lower principles? and if too low, why not get up 
a society which shall go far enough ? Will a man stand alone 
and say, “ I am the bedstead of Procrustes. All that are taller 
than I, I will shorten ; and all who are shorter, I will stretch; or 
else I will have nothing to do with any peace society.” If sin¬ 
cerely desirous to aid the cause of Peace, why not join in the 
Peace efforts now. Do something to enlighten your own mind 
and that of the public. The publications of the peace society 
are always open to free discussion, from either side of the question. 

But there are other excuses which one sometimes makes to 
his conscience, such as “ I am a peace man and believe all wars 
unchristian, but we must wait God’s time. The millennium 
will surely come, and God wants not the aid of man to bring it 
about.” Another says, “Preach the Gospel. There is no need of 
any voluntary association on the subject; when all men become 
Christians, wars will cease, and not before.” And he wisely con¬ 
cludes that Christians must continue to kill one another until all 
men become Christians! 

There are many other objections to the cause of Peace of a 
like nature with those above specified, and there are also many 
obstacles to our cause ; some above water and apparent to all; 
others more latent, but not less dangerous ; and I purpose, in a 
series of essays, to take up the obstacles and objections which 
lie in the way of the cause of Peace; and shall take the ob¬ 
stacles first, because they are in fact the foundation of the ob¬ 
jections. 


6 


SECTION 11. 

The 'prejudices of education. 

The first obstacle to the cause of Peace which I shall consider, 
is the prejudice of education. But so much has been aheady 
said on the subject by other writers and myself, that I barely 
glance at it. 

In the present state of society, almost everything relating to 
the subject of Peace and war is calculated to give the mind a bias 
in favor of war. From the cradle to the grave we are used to 
hear the praises of warriors sounded as though they were the 
greatest benefactors of their country. We see eV'Crywhere their 
portraits, their busts and their statues; though of late I have 
seen Napoleon’s statue in a bar-room, oftener than anywhere 
else — fit temple for such a deity. Most of our books, from the 
nursery tales to Homer’s Iliad, are full of the praises of warriors. 
Our militia system, with its gaudy and fantastic dresses, its 
feathers and horsehair and bearskin and tinsel, with its order, 
motion, and music, give to children false ideas of war. They do 
not see our companies of militia lately returned from Florida, re¬ 
duced in numbers, pale and sickly, and falling one after another 
into an untimely grave. There is no parade of the sick, the 
wounded, the dying and the dead, with their bodies half con¬ 
sumed by the wolves and the turkey-buzzards. They see noth¬ 
ing of the forlorn widow and her weeping children. Everything 
which they see of war is gaudy, brilliant and exhilarating. 

Our prejudices render us blind to the faults of warriors and the 
sins of war. If one has been a successful general and killed a 
great many of his fellow-creatures, it is thought almost impious 
to doubt that he has gone to Heaven. Let him have profaned 
the Sabbath ever so much ; let him have lied ever so often, and 
practiced every art of deception ; let him have plundered, robbed 
and murdered ever so many innocent persons ; let him trample 
on all law's human and divine; all this is excused as necessary 
10 war. If he be an adulterer, a gatnhler, and drunkard beside 
— provided he does not get very drunk on the day of battle — 


/ 


nil these vices are excused on account of his military virtues, 
which are so much like them. In England to doubt whetlier a 
Marlborough or a Nelson has gone to heaven ; and in France, 
formerly, if not now, to suspect that Napoleon lias gone to per¬ 
dition, would be thought the height of fanaticism : and such is 
the force of prejudice in favor of warriors, that I dare not name 
the heroes of my own country. ‘Is it wonderful that a boy should 
aspire to a character which covers him with glory on earth while 
he lives, and secures heaven to him when he dies, whatever may 
have been his vices and his crimes ? 

Although we are very blind to our own prejudices, we are very 
sharp-sighted to the prejudices of others. We wonder at the 
prejudices of our southern brethren, brought up among slaves, 
that they cannot see the sin of slavery as we do who never 
owned any; without considering that we tolerate, and often ap¬ 
plaud, a system which is the origin of all slavery, both political 
and personal, and which is more cruel in its consequences, and 
more destructive to the interests of the immortal soul than negro 
slavery. We are astonished at the infatuation of the Hindoo 
who casts himself before the wheels of Juggernaut to be crushed 
to death ; while we tolerate a system which probably has de¬ 
stroyed more lives in one day than the car ot Juggernaut has 
since the creation of the world. We are astonished at the blind¬ 
ness of the Catholic who believes in transubstantiation and purga¬ 
tory, and who upholds the inquisition ; but we tolerate a system 
as much at variance with the gospel as either — a system which 
has destroyed perhaps a million of souls where the inquisition 
has destroyed one. The truth is, those persons have been edu¬ 
cated in their principles, we in ours. Being once in a Roman 
Catholic church, in a Spanish province, on the evening of Good 
Friday, amid the blaze of wax candles and the splendor of the 
the Catholic ritual, a priest said to me, “Sii, oui exhibitions aie 
very imposing.” “ Yes,” I might have answered if I had dared, 
the o'reatest imposition in the world.” But I have since seen a 
greate^ in my own country and among my own friends. The 
exhibitions of war are a greater imposition than those of popery, 
and like them they owe their imposition to their splendor. 

We are much more ready to reform otliers than ourselves. 
The people at the North would gladly relorm the slaveholders 


8 


of the South ; Christians make great sacrifices to reform the hea¬ 
then ; and Protestants are equally desirous to reform the Catho¬ 
lics ; but no one thinks of reforming himself; and one sees a 
mote in his brother’s eye more readily than a beam in his own 
eye. 

Were it not for the prejudices of education, we should see very 
readily the inconsistency of war with the religion we profess. It 
would be a very difficult task to reconcile a person brought up in 
the principles of Peace to the custom of war. The prejudices of 
education must be reckoned among the greatest obstacles to tbe 
the propagation of the pacific principles of the gospel; and every 
friend of Peace should endeavor to counteract these prejudices, as 
much as possible, in the education of the children and youth 
committed to his or her care. 

This subject particularly addresses itself to mothers. It has 
been said with truth, that “ Those who rock the cradle rule 
the world.” It is in the power of every mother, if she be¬ 
gins early enovgh^ to bring up her son in such a manner as 
shall guard him against the false notions with which the world 
abounds, and shall enable him, by God’s help, to keep clear of 
its “ impositione.” 


SECTION III. 

Indifference to the subject. 

The next obstacle to the general prevalence of the pacific 
principles inculcated in the gospel, which I shall mention, is, 
indifference to the subject. 

There is a sluggishness in the moral world which is contin¬ 
ually crying, “ a little more sleep, a little more slumber, a little 
more folding of the hands to sleep,” like the sluggard, while 
briers and thorns overrun his vineyard, the stone wall thereof is 
broken down, and the wild boar of the wilderness doth waste it. 
Even the church of Christ, which he hath purchased with his 
own blood, has sometimes these fits of sluggishness come over 
her, while the vineyard of her Lord resembles that of tbe slug¬ 
gard ; and his favorite olive, which he has planted with his own 


9 


hand, is choked with briers and thorns, and there are but few 
who labor to eradicate them. With the greater part of those 
who bear the Christian name, there is often “a lioti in the way” 
when they are called on to take a bold stand against the practices 
of a wicked world ; and they are afraid to examine a subject 
lest they should find that their duty woidd lead them one way, 
while they are iuclijicd to go the other, or to sit still and do 
nothing until the tide turns, and they may sail witlj the current. 

Unfortunately for the friends of Peace, there is no excitement 
about it, as there is in many other works of Christim benev¬ 
olence. There is no opposition to arotise the dortnant faculties 
of the mind. Every one says, God bless you “ go on and 
prosper,” “ 1 wish you success.” If we ask such an one for as¬ 
sistance, he begs to be excused : “ really he is so much engaged 
in other works of benevolence,” that he can afford us neither 
time nor ntoney. He is as much of a peace man as anybody, 
but he must first set all the slaves free, or he must first abolish 
intemperance, or he must devote himself to the cause of moral 
reform, or the Catholics must first be put down. And so, like 
the hare, with many friends, the cause of Peace is left to shift for 
itself. 

There is great reason to fear that the friends of Peace in this 
country, have never yet taken the high ground which tlie scrip¬ 
tures warrant them to take. If they had, 1 believe this indiffer¬ 
ence would have ceased iu a great measure; and Christians 
would begin to inquire how far the advocates of peace are right. 
And though many more would oppose us, there would be many 
who would support and protect us. It can hardly be expected 
that the true principles of Peace will meet with the approbation 
of men of the w’orld, for the natural man receiveth not the 
things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ; 
neither can he know^ them, because they are>spiritually dis¬ 
cerned” (1 Cor. ii. 14.) We have reason, therefore, to expect 
that if the principles of Peace which are warranted by the gospel 
were openly promulgated by the friends of-Peace, they would 
meet the opposition of the world. If they should come out and 
denounce all w^ar, offensive and defensive, and attack the w’ai of 
the Revolution, and assert that however pure might have been 
the motives of those who instigated it, the measures put sued 
2 




10 


were not in accordance with the principles of the gospel —that 
the same principles which would warrant the war of the Revolu¬ 
tion, would warrant also an insurrection of the slaves — that the 
law of violence is never allowed to the Christian, and that, come 
what may, he never should depart from the law of love — that 
he should consent to suffer, rather than make others suffer, and 
“ take joyfully the spoiling of his goods” — that he should never 
attempt to overcome evil with evil — if they should take the 
ground of the primitive Christians, and never resort to the law of 
violence for the prevention of evil, protection, or redress, and that 
if it is wrong to fight, it is wrong to learn to fight, and that con¬ 
sequently all preparation for war should be immediately aban¬ 
doned — if the friends of Peace should take this ground, indiffer¬ 
ence would cease. Every man would take one side or the other. 
Hard speeches would be heard from both sides. Men’s passions 
would be aroused. Persecution would commence; and one 
side or the other must suffer. Which side that would be no one 
can doubt; for what good was ever yet accomplished without suf¬ 
fering? Better to suffer than to sin. And one martyr at the 
stake, or one coat of tar and feathers, or one “ lynching,” would 
do more for the cause of Peace than ever yet has been done. 
See, for instance, the anti-slavery cause. What would ever have 
become of that, without persecution? We should all have gone 
to sleep over it, just as we have over the Peace cause. 

On the other hand, it is argued that this excitement has done 
more hurt than good, and has put back the emancipation of the 
slave — that the friends of Peace must not go too fast — that 
they ought to be content with the success which has already at¬ 
tended their labors — that under the mild and gentle ministra¬ 
tions of the Peace societies, a great change in public opinion*has 
been already effected ; and that the friends of Peace ought to be 
satisfied to work along quietly, content with their obscurity, until 
the next generation comes on the field of action, who will be less 
prejudiced than the present against Peace principles — that the 
world is not yet prepared for the whole truth, and has need of 
milk rather than of strong meat, and that many of our friends, 
especially among the aged, will leave us if we take ultra ground. 

I must confess that I have been long halting between two 
opinions ; but I am almost tired of this everlasting apathy, and 


11 


fbel more disposed to contend for the cause of Peace than ever. 
“ but the weapons of my warfore shall not be carnal, but spirit¬ 
ual,” and I pray (hat they may be mighty through God to the 
pulling down of the strong-holds of sin and Satan. 


SECTION IV. 

Lack of faith in the promises of God. 

Another obstacle to the progress of pacific sentiments, is want 
of faith in the promises of God. 

Unbelief has always been the easily besetting sin of the church 
of Christ. So magnificent are the promises held out in the inspired 
volume, and so great must be the change before those promises 
can be fulfilled, that the people of God are ready to exclaim, with 
the unbelieving Samaritan lord, “behold,if the Lord would make 
windows in Heaven, might this thing be?” 

I need not here recapitulate the promises which are scattered 
through the whole Bible ; for there are few (hat pretend to even 
a speculative belief in the divine inspiration of holy writ who 
deny that a state of society is absolutely promised, when the na¬ 
tions shall not even learn war any more, “ for the mouth of (he 
Lord of hosts hath spoken it.” (Micah iv. 4.) And to avow a 
disbelief in those promises to which God has added so solemn an 
asseveration, would be to give up all pretension to the belief in 
divine revelation, and to place one’s self on the same footing with 
Paine and Kneeland. It is true that Christians generally have 
some vague notion that the time will come when the nature of 
the wolf and the lion will be changed; and that, instead of liv¬ 
ing on flesh', to which their digestive organs are adapted, they 
will eat straw, like an ox ; not once suspecting that the lion and 
the wolf are in their own bosom—that a carnivorous appetite 
governs the community of which they form a part; and that ev¬ 
ery time they glorify a warrior for his martial achievements, they 
are at the same time stimulating that appetite and catering for its 
gratification. 

But the millennium is nearer to every one than he is willing 
to believe. Let a man adopt the pacific principles of the gospel, 


12 


to their whole extent — let him love his enemies, and be prepared 
to render always good for evil, and the millennium has come to 
him. He has it already, as much as he can have it, were he to 
live forever. The principle of love is the principle of happiness: 
it dwells in Heitven, and heaven dwells in the hreast of that 
man wdio loves God with all his heart and his neighbor as him¬ 
self. The principle of hatred is llie principle of hell,— and the 
man wd)o fosters malice in Ins bosom, has a hell within himself j 
and so long as he entertains the principle of enmity, he never can 
be happy in Heaven ; for if he ^‘love not his brother w’hom he 
hath seen, how' can he love God wdiom he hath not seen The 
only thing necessary to bring about the millennium, is to give 
these principlCvS a general circulation, and w'hen they are generally 
adopted, the millennium is come, w'hich is not so difficult if Chris¬ 
tians could only he persuaded to set the example. 

There are matty who call themselves Christians, w'ho say that 
“ wars aUvays have been, and therefore they always will be.” 
They do not take any notice of the wonderful changes which 
have been already effected in the world. Look at w'ar itself; 
what is it now compared wdth what it w^as a few centuries ago? 
We now w’^onder at the barbarity of Napoleon and SataAnna, wdio 
could order their prisoners to be shot in cold blood ; but three 
centuries ago, such occurrences were so common as not to be no¬ 
ticed : and whoever wdll take the pains to examine into the sub¬ 
ject, will find that such horrid practices are chiefly confined to 
infidels and Romanists. Whoever will compare ancient things 
with modern, wdll perceive that a mighty change has been ef¬ 
fected ; and since the dawm of the Reformation, the w'orld has 
advanced full one half way toward the millennium. A revolu¬ 
tion has already commenced in public opinion with respect to 
the unlawfulness of all war — and “ revolutions do not go back ; ” 
but we have every reason to believe that the change w'ill go on 
to perfection, just so fast as the church of Chiist will carry it. 
It is in her power to bring the millennium,, whenever she will 
labor and pray for it. Let every Christian put his shoulder to 
the wdieel, and call upon God — and the work will soon be ac¬ 
complished. 


13 


SECTION V. 

The expectation that the millennium will be brought about 

by miracle. 

Another thing which obstructs the progress of the principles 
of Peace, is the opinion that the promises of God will be effected 
without liiiman instrumentality. 

Practical antinomianism has been banished from the church 
in respect to almost every other cause but that of Peace, and 
Christians begin to be almost ashamed of it even in this cause. 
The time was, when Christians thought that the heathen would 
be converted without any instrumentality or trouble of theirs; and 
Christians slumbered and slept, while millions of heathen were 
every year going down to the grave, without once having heard 
of a Saviour. The church has at length awaked from her 
slumber, and glorious results have followed her exertions — much 
more glorious than could have been expected, when we consider 
what an obstacle war among Christians throws in the way of 
the conversion of Jews and heathens. Were this obstacle re¬ 
moved, a nation would be born in a day, and “all flesh soon see 
the salvation of God.” Indeed, almost all that has been done, 
has been brought to pass during comparatively peaceable times, 
and so much has been done, that we have reason to thank God 
and lake courage. 

Why do not men apply this antinomian principle to the cause 
of temperance, anti-slavery, and every other benevolent enterprise, 
as well as to the cause of Peace only ? Tliey are ashamed to do 
it, or many would gladly offer it as an excuse for their apathy 
and criminal neglect of duty ; but the great progress other benev¬ 
olent causes have made, has given a practical demonstration that 
we “can do all things through Christ who strengiheneth us,”— 
that everything which ought to be done, can be done ; and that 
there is no obstacle to the accomplishment of any of God’s prom¬ 
ises, which zeal and perseverance cannot remove. 

A man seldom suspects that it is in his power to advance or 
retard the millennium — that, by correcting himself in the first 


14 


place, and then by his influence on his family and all who come 
within his reach, he can hasten on the blessed consummation,— 
or, by fostering in himself and others a proud, vindictive, ambi¬ 
tious disposition, he can throw obstacles in the way of its ad¬ 
vancement. He may say, I am but a drop in the ocean. True ; 
and while he continues in the ocean, he may be a very insignificant 
drop; but when he comes out from the ocean and plainly avows 
his sentiments, he may do incalculable good. A small cause 
may produce a great effect, and a small cause may prevent that 
effect. A single spark may set a whole city on fire, but a single 
drop of water may extinguish that spark. Little did Luther 
think, when he posted his famous theses on the church-docr in 
Wittemburg, that he was lighting up a fire which'would in time 
consume the mighty fabric of Roman Catholic superstition, and 
that his power would be felt to the ends of the earth. 

There was a time, when antinomianism was a very common 
heresy in the church. A sinner was told that he must wait 
God’s tiine^ and that he could do nothing of himself. I have seen 
a book which has in it this passage : — “The most diligent at¬ 
tention to the means of grace affords no more hope of salvation 
than the most profligate life.” Christians have now generally ' 
abandoned such sentiments, so far as individuals are concerned ; 
but with respect to nations, they still adhere to them, for they 
practically say that the most diligent attention to the means of 
abolishing the custom of war, give no more hope of preserving 
peace than the utmost exertions to keep up a militaryspirit in the 
country. They are for waiting God’s time, as though his time 
was not now. “ Now is the accepted time, now is the day of 
salvation.” Whenever a sinner will, he may turn from his 
wicked ways; and so may a nation. God has extended his 
promises to both. Those who seek shall find ; “ and to him that 
knocketh, it shall l)d opened;” and this is as applicable to a na¬ 
tion as to an individual. Let the church but do her duty; “let 
her arise and shine, her light being come; ” let her shake olf the 
filth and blood which now defile the skirts of her garments, and 
come out from the world, and openly denounce the wicked cus¬ 
tom of war, and she will be more terrible to ambitious conquerors, 
than an army with banners. 




15 


SECTION VI. 

Christians become weary in well doing. 

Another obstacle to the progress of the principles of Peace is, 
that Christians and philanthropists are too often weary in well 
doing. 

When the success of any good cause depends on the patient, 
laborious, and protracted exertions of those wlio undertake it, and 
much time elapses before they reap the benefit of their labors, 
they are very apt to relax their zeal; and if they do not actually 
give up the cause in despair, they complain bitterly of the weari¬ 
ness of the way, and often cease to exert themselves. 

This propensity is most common in those persons who have 
only felt much sympathy for a good cause, and have not done 
much to promote it. The end of all feeling is, or should be, 
action. If we neglect to act after we have felt, we shall soon 
cease to feel. This is agreeable to a law of our nature. A con¬ 
stant repetition of stimulants blunts the feeling, both corporeal 
and mental. A tippler who begins with a teaspoonful of brandy, 
will probably before long require a pint to satisfy him. The pal¬ 
ate of the epicure becomes insensible to common stimulants, and 
he requires a constant addition to their power. A person who is 
always poring over novels and highly-wrought stories of fictitious 
wo, becomes by degrees insensible to the objects of compassion 
around him. This occurs because the novel offers no opportunity 
for action; but the philanthropist who acts upon the excitement, 
becomes more philanthropic. In the last end of Howard’s glo¬ 
rious career, his philanthropy shone brighter than at its com¬ 
mencement. In fact, our passive sensations are weakened by 
the repetition of impressions, just as our active propensities are 
strengthened by the repetition of action. 

There is another principle of our nature of a like kind, and 
which very much strengthens this propensity to w’eariness in well¬ 
doing, which is, that when we turn a deaf ear to the voice of con¬ 
science calling on us to act in any benevolent cause, we endeavor 
to stifle our convictionsby persuading ourselves that the cause is of 


16 


little cr no consequence; or that the measures pursued by its 
agents are injudicious, and that they go too far, <fcc. This is 
especially the case when the cause calls for any great exercise of 
moral courage and sacrifice of popularity or of property. By a 
principle of our nature, the stifling of any such convictions by 
which conscience would induce us to act in favor of any good 
cause, inevitably brings on a distaste if not a disgust to that cause ; 
and we hate to look upon it, as we do on a creditor whom we 
are unable, or unwilling, to pay. 

When a man has made a sacrifice to promote any good cause, 
he will generally feel an attachment to that cause, which will be 
strong in proportion to the magnitude of the sacrifice. A hus¬ 
bandman who has ploughed, harrowed and sowed, will wait 
patiently for the fruits of his labors; but he who expects to reap 
only the spontaneous bounties of nature, will soon become im¬ 
patient and hopeless, if he does not perceive strong evidence of 
his being gratified before long. 

It must be confessed that there are instances in which those 
who have labored well in the cause of Peace, have been weary 
in well doing, and have felt disposed to give up the cause in 
despair. It becomes such to examine and see whether no im¬ 
pure motive has intruded itself among their better thoughts — 
whether a love of distinction or worldly gain has not been lurk¬ 
ing among their motives. If this has been the case, it is no 
wonder if their disappointment has caused their defection. We 
have reason to be thankful, however, that the instances of those 
who have been very active in (he cause, but who have left it, 
have been so few. 

I intended that my remarks should chiefly apply to such as 
have only felt and never acted in the cause, and to those who 
have done very little, and much less than their consciences have 
told them that they ought to do to promote it. 

Then let every friend of Peace do something to help the cause, 
and do it now. Let ministers of the gospel preach on the sub¬ 
ject of Peace, and give their people an opportunity to contribute 
of their substance. 


17 


SECTION YII. 

The glory of the American revolutionary war. 

One of the most formidable obstacles to the cause of Peace in 
this country, is the glory of the Revolutionary War. 

I must confess that I approach this “delicate subject” with 
fear and trembling. And I doubt not that I shall be considered 
rash by many of the friends of Peace, \vho will say that it is un¬ 
necessary to touch the subject; that the war of the Revolution 
was a w^ar of self-defence, and therefore not objected to by the 
pri nciples of the American Peace Society. It is true this society 
does not condemn, neither does it approve of the war of the Rev¬ 
olution. It leaves the subject of the consistency of that war with 
the principles of the Christian religion, as a problem to be solved 
by future friends of Peace, wdien they shall have brought the 
war in its several parts, and as a whole, to the severe test of gos¬ 
pel principles. I mean to handle the question of the accordancy 
of the principles of the Revolutionary war with the principles of 
the gospel, for the present, as problematical; but as in my future 
numbers I mean to take the ground that all war is inconsistent 
with the spirit of the gospel, I may as well begin to grapple with 
this gigantic difficulty, this Goliah of the opposing army, now, 
as at any time. 

At present I shall only attempt to show that the prejudices in 
favor of the war of the Revolution are unfavorable to the ad¬ 
vancement of the kingdom of the Prince of Peace, and that 
some, at least, of the prevailing opinions concerning the benefits 
derived from the war of the Revolution are delusive. 

We compare our present flourishing condition and our bright 
prospects with the situation of our country before the revolution, 
and we attribute all this prosperity to the success of the w’ar; and 
from that, deduce an argument in favor of war in general and of 
defensive war in particular. At the commencement of tlie Revo¬ 
lution, our population amounted to but three millions; now we 
number fifteen millions. And we seem to tliink that the human 
race would have ceased to multiply if w’e had remained united 
3 


18 


to Great Britain ; whereas it is altogether probable that the 
country would have been more populous. Statistical tables show 
that the war retarded the progress of population very consider¬ 
ably ; and this it did, not only by lessening the natural increase, 
as is the case with all wars, but by preventing emigration. So 
far as bare population is concerned, I have no doubt the differ¬ 
ence would be found in favor of the cause of Peace. 

There are other views of the consequences of the war of the 
Revolution which ought to be examined ; and perhaps we should 
inquire into the moral evils brought on the country by that war 
which, let it have been a righteous war or not, was accompanied 
with that deterioration of morals and decline of religion which 
always attend all war. Infidelity was almost unknown in this 
country before the Revolution ; instances of intemperance were 
rare ; and the sanctity of the Sabbath received a blow from 
which it has never yet recovered. 

In an ancient book entitled Bath-kol, published “ by the 
First Presbytery of the Eastward,” and printed at Boston in A. D. 
1783, a frightful picture is drawn of the degraded state of society 
in “ the land of the pilgrims,” as a consequence of the war of the 
Revolution. I make a few extracts, and those not the most 
pointed, but the shortest. 

This Presbytery, taking into serious consideration the pres¬ 
ent low state of vital religion, the great and general declension in 
the practice of virtue and piety, and the alarming progress of 
vice and immorality of every kind,” it was “ ordered that a com¬ 
mittee be appointed,” to take the same into consideration and 
report thereon. The body of the book consists of the report, 
which takes up about 300 pages, 12mo. 

The introduction commences thus: “It has pleased the Sove¬ 
reign of the Universe, for eight long years, to continue on Amer¬ 
ica the awful judgment of a bloody and destructive war.” It 
then proceeds to mention some of the consequences of the war. 
“ He must be a stranger indeed in Israel to whom it remains till 
now a secret, that the regard for religion, for which New-Eng- 
land was once conspicuous, has vanished from among us in a 
lamentable degree.” “Family religion is a stranger to the 
dwellings of thousands ; and the judgments of Heaven against 
Sabbath-breaking are pleaded as an argument for continuing in 


19 


that sin.” “And if such outrages against God and religion are 
called in question, the answer in almost every mouth is ready, ’tis 
war timesJ'^ 

“ The youth, bred in the innocency of a rural retreat, that was 
never heard to defile his tongue with an oath in his life, no 
sooner gets on board of a privateer, or has spent a few days in 
the camp, than we find him learned in all the language of helL 
The most horrid oaths and infernal curses load and taint the air 
about him whenever he opens his mouth ! and this language 
passes current as a grace of conversation, as a polish of style that 
should suffice to dub him a fine gentleman, or as certain proofs 
of heroism in all the arts of war.” 

“Benevolence to our fellow-men was perhaps never less culti¬ 
vated in any country than it seems to be of late among us ; 
hard-hearted indifference to the distress of the poor, the widow, 
and the orphan, have risen up and seized her throne.” “Intem¬ 
perance in an ungoverned passion for, and an immoderate use of, 
strong and spirituous liquors, even to the intoxication that de¬ 
grades human nature below the brutal herd, is become sadly 
common among us mem” Uncleanness is awfully increased. 
Antenuptial fornications are so frequent and so slightly censured, 
that it seems almost to be forgotten that it is a crime.” “ Glaring 
instances of peculation and breach of public trust are sheltered 
and uncensured j and private robberies, thefts and burglaries 
abound more and more.” “ Avarice stalks in the streets, or lurks 
in the corners, and has stained the public roads with inhuman 
murders.” Speaking of infidelity, the report says, “ America at 
last received the infection. There were men to be found among 
the gentlemen of the sword, as well as of the bar, in some of the 
principal towns in this country, certain persons who had drank 
in this poison.” “The last war sowed this seed plentifully. 
Large quantities were imported in the British fleets and armies. 
Officers in some of our fleets were found valuing themselves on 
having read Chubb, and being able to prove his book unanswer¬ 
able.” 

But it is not necessary to my purpose to magnify the evils or 
undervalue the advantages, which accrued from the Revolution. 

I allow that the advantages were great, that a countiy ought not 
to be governed by men three thousand miles distant, that repre- 


sentation and taxation ought to go together; and could America 
hav’^e been separated from Great Britain in the same peaceful 
manner as the colonies of ancient Greece were separated from 
tlie mother country, or Maine^ separated from Massachusetts, such 
a separation was Iiighly desirable on many accounts. Nor do I 
wish to pluck one leaf frnm the laurels of the heroes who fought, 
bled, and died in defence of tlieir country’s rights, on the bloody 
field, where brother met brother in deadly strife. Peace be to 
their ashes. Let them receive all the praise they deserve on 
earth ; and if I could frame any benediction for a future state 
which would not look too much like irony, I would gladly 
add it. 

But the end ought not to sanctify the means. Privateering 
was as much licensed piracy then as it is now. The confiscation 
of private debts w^as then as contrary to the law of nature and of 
nations, not to mention the law God, as it is now ; and the temp¬ 
tations laid before our citizens to violate their contracts with Eng¬ 
lishmen by allowing the debtor to share the spoil, was as much an 
inducement to dishonesty then as it would have been during the 
last war. Mobs were then no more justifiable than they are now» 
“ The Boston tea-party,” and the affair of the 6th of March were 
no more justifiable than modern mobs. Tarring and feathering a 
man for his private opinions, was not more justifiable then than it 
is now. Indeed the mobites of the present day attempt to justify 
themselves by the example set them by the heroes of the Revolu¬ 
tion ; and well they may. We are the creatures of circumstances. 
Had the American Revolution failed, it would have been a bloody 
rebellion. As it succeeded we call it a glorious Revolution. 

1 most cheerfully grant that the heroes of the Revolution 
were ardent and sincere lovers of liberty, and made enormous 
sacrifices to obtain it. Ah, if professing Christians were willing 
to make half so great sacrifices to free the world from the thral¬ 
dom of sin, what a glorious revolution might long ago have 
been effected ! Yes, the heroes of the Revolution loved liberty 
much: I mean tkeir own liberty. What did the poor slaves 
gain by the Revolution ? Were they now to rise upon their 
masters and obtain their liberty by force of arms, nineteen out of 
twenty of our fellow-citizens would condemn the measure as un¬ 
christian. Is the same conduct right in a white man and wrong 


21 


in a black man? Had we continued to be united with the 
British nation, it is probable that slavery would have ceased in 
this country when it ceased in the British West-Indies. 

Are we to look to our own advantage only, and not to the 
good of the whole? Allowing that the Revolution was best for 
us, it does not follow that it was best for the whole empire. Did 
not our politicians boast that, by the Revolution, the British 
crown lost its brightest jewel ? If we are to love our enemy, 
ought we to rejoice at his loss ? 

Who can tell the effect on the destinies of the world, had 
Great Britain and America continued united on equitable terms, 
with an equal representation allowed us in the British Parlia¬ 
ment, and our own independent State governments at home? — 
and if all the mental energy, bodily suffering, and wealth, which 
were expended in the war, had been contributed to the good of 
the world and the advancement of the Redeemer’s kingdom ? — 
Could not all the advantages of the Revolution have been ob¬ 
tained by moral means alone, perhaps with some suffering, but 
not a thousandth part so much as was actually endured? 

There is another view which ought to be taken of this sub¬ 
ject. We should look at it by the light of eternity. Was the 
Revolution conducive to the salvation of souls, or otherwise? 
Did it not put an effectual stop to the great revival which began 
in the time of president Edwards ? Did it not introduce infidel¬ 
ity, vice, and immorality ? Did it not send many a poor soul to 
its last account, “ with all its imperfections on its head ”? Were 
all the temporal advantages of the American Revolution equal to 
the value of one immortal soul? Would any one give his own 
soul for all the advantages of the Revolution ? If one such per¬ 
son can be found, then he can easily answer the question of 
Christ, “What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” 

The devoted Christian, who is determined to follow the pre¬ 
cepts of his Master, let them lead where they may, ought to ask 
himself these and many similar questions. Perhaps if he should, 
he would come to the conclusion, that “ those things which are 
highly esteemed among men, are abomination in the sight of 
God.” 

But, whatever may be our opinion of the American Revolu- 
tion — its means or its consequences — it ought not to prejudice 


22 


us against the cause of Peace. War is still an evil, of tremen¬ 
dous consequences, both temporal and eternal, to which the oc¬ 
casional and accidental benefits sometimes accruing from it, are 
but the “ small dust of the balance.” 


SECTION VIII. 

The objections that war is necessary to keep down the redun¬ 
dant population of the world — that Peace would furnish 
no materials for history — that war is necessary to drain 
off the refuse of society — and that it is necessary to fur¬ 
nish occupation to the younger sons of the nobility, — con¬ 
sidered. 

Most of the obstacles to the prevalence of the principles of 
Peace which I have previously mentioned, are not peculiar to the 
cause of Peace. Many of them obstruct the progress of other be¬ 
nevolent enterprises; and my remarks on them are chiefiy appli¬ 
cable to those who “care for none of these things” — who do not 
wish to examine a subject which will be likely to make a demand 
on their purse, their time, or their moral courage — men who, like 
chips and straws, float along with the current, and whose con¬ 
stant cry is, “let us alone.” 

There is another class of obstacles, which do not arise from 
any objections to our principles. There are many who allow 
that our principles are correct, but who excuse themselves from 
taking any active part in enforcing them, by bringing various 
objections to any definite operation in the cause. They do not 
deny that our principles are founded in the gospel — that no 
man can follow the example and precepts of Christ, and at the 
same time render evil for evil, and kill his enemy and send his 
soul to endless perdition ; but they object to putting our princi¬ 
ples into operation for the following reasons. 

In the first place, they say that our principles, if carried out, 
would render the world too populous ! Ten or fifteen years ago, this 
was a very common objection to the cause of Peace. It was said 
that war, with all its attendant evils of slaughter, pestilence, and 
famine, is necessary to keep down the redundant and overflowing 


23 


population of the world; but I seldom hear it now, except in the 
mouth of a very ignorant person. At that time, I thought it 
necessary to write an article of considerable length, to quiet the 
fears of those who were apprehensive that if our principles pre¬ 
vailed, the world would be too happy ! but I do not now think it 
worth a separate section ; and I only mention it to show tlie ad¬ 
vance of Peace principles. Many objections, which were se¬ 
riously urged a few years ago, and are now thought quite formi¬ 
dable, will soon follow this to the “ tomb of the Capulets.” 

Another objection to the progress of our principles, which we 
used to hear very frequently in times gone by, is, that if our 
principles prevail, we shall lack materials for history and biogra- 
phy. I really pity the man who prefers the description of a hat- 
tie, or a duel, or a bull-fight, or a cock-fight, or any fight, between 
two-legged or four-legged animals, to the history of those great 
events which are silently changing the face of the world, and 
making the verdure of spring to succeed the desolations of win¬ 
ter. Is there not enough in the history of the reformation, the 
progress of foreign missions, the abolition of the slave-trade and 
of slavery itself, the advancement of liberal principles, and the 
inventions and discoveries of science — the mariner’s compass, 
the telescope, the sextant, and all the wonders which have been 
brought to light in astronomy, chemistry, geology, and other sci¬ 
ences, to take up all the time we have to spare for reading and 
study ? Have not the arts made a greater change in the con¬ 
dition of the world, than ever was made by the sword ? The art 
of printing, the steam-engine, the spinning-jenney, and a thous¬ 
and other inventions, afford more rational topics for history than 
all the battles which were ever lost or won. There is to be, or 
rather there is now, a great change in the character of biogra¬ 
phy. The world is adopting a new standard of excellency. 
Plutarch’s lives will be left to dust and worms, while the biogra¬ 
phy of such men as Luther, Faust, Galileo, Newton, Arkwright, 
Franklin, Bolton and Watt, Wilberforce, Fulton, Ceaveland, 
Silliman, and a host of other names, will receive the attention of 
the biographer, while Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, and such ad¬ 
venturers, will be mentioned only wilh disgust and classed with 
the heroes of the “ Newgate Calendar,” who often exceeded 
them in cunning and villainy, but who had not so large a stage 


24 


.to act them on. But this objection is now so seldom urged, that 
1 shall bestow on it no further notice. 

Another of these old objections to the operations of peace so¬ 
cieties, is, that war is necessary to drain off the refuse of society. 
It is many years since I have heard this cruel and hard-hearted 
objection made use of. And it is now so generally allowed that 
where war sends one vagabond to his last account, it creates ten, 
and that it fits men for the place of torment and then sends 
them there, that 1 dismiss the objection with a short notice. 

Another objection to the progress of Peace principles, which 
was very common about the close of the last war, and which be¬ 
gan to be revived a little, when lately there was danger of a war 
with France, among those who consider themselves the aristoc¬ 
racy of the country, arises from the fear that if our principles 
prevail, their sons will be thrown out of employment. They 
say, “ If wars were to cease, what would become of our sons, 
who have been educated at West Point. Objections of this 
kind are not so common in this country as they are in England, 
where so many sprigs of nobility flourish on the spoils of the 
people, and‘fatten on the blood and sweat of the lower orders. 
The younger sons of the nobility enter the army or the church, 
according as their family connexions may be with a general or a 
bishop ; and the people are taxed enormously for their support: 
but while they complain bitterly of tithes, they make but little 
objection to the millions expended in military preparations: so 
much more do men love earthly glory than future happiness! 

These objections are taken from a lecture written about ten 
years ago, when it was thought necessary seriously to meet them 
with argument. There are a few more, of a like nature, which 
are not worth mentioning at all; and I am almost ashamed of 
having mentioned the foregoing, but I did it to show the pro¬ 
gress of Peace principles. 


25 


SECTION IX. 

The natural j)cissions of the human heart. 

There is another objection, which some persons bring up to 
excuse themselves from taking any active part in the peace refor¬ 
mation. They say that the natural passions of the human 
heart must he eradicated before the friends of Peace can have 
any hope of success. 

That this obstacle should be thrown in the way of the cause 
of Peace, more than any other benevolent cause, shows that those 
who make the objection, have not well examined the subject. 
It is equally applicable to the cause of temperance, anti-slavery, 
or any other good cause. It may even be brought against 
preaching the gospel and foreign missions. But it is not true 
that the passions of the human heart must be eradicated be¬ 
fore these benevolent objects can be obtained. The passions 
were implanted by God in the human heart for wise and benev¬ 
olent purposes; and I do not know that there is one of them 
which we should wish to spare. I do not think that Adam had. 
a single passion after the fall which he had not befoie. The 
misfortune was, that the natuial passion^ and instincts were pei- 
verted from their right use. They were meant for self-preserva¬ 
tion, the continuance of the species, and rational enjoyment; 
but, by the fall, they w’ere perverted ; and what before w\as 
good, became the occasion of evil. The object of Christian and 
benevolent operations is, to restore the fallen race of man to its 
ori^^inal purity, as far as is practicable on this side of the grave. 

But it is not necessary that all the passions of the human 
heart should be eradicated, to insure the success of any one of 
the benev^olent enterprises of the day. The gieat success whicli 
lias attended the exertions, to reform religion, put a stop to the 
slave-trade, promote the cause of tempeiance, of emancipation, 
and other good objects, show’^s that much good may be effected 
w’ithout eradicating the natural passions of mankind. 

We are taught in the word of God to believe that tlie passions 
of mankind wall be tamed. In the figurative language of pioph- 
■4 


26 


ecy^ we read that ‘Hhe wolf also shall dwell with the Iamb, and 
the leopard shall lie down with the kid and the calf and the 
young lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead 
them. And the cow and the bear shall feed together; their 
young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw, 
like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the 
asp ; and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice 
den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, 
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the 
waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah, xi. 6-9.) Now, if this is to be 
done, I ask Jiow it is to be done. Are we to expect some stu¬ 
pendous miracle, or some new dispensation ? Or is the Christian 
religion, as it is, adequate to the end proposed, and the means 
W’hich are now made use of by the friends of Peace to enforce 
the precepts of the gospel, and to make them bear on communi¬ 
ties and nations, the proper steps to be taken to bring about the 
millennium. If not, I should like to know what are the suitable 
means, and I will be content to drop those used hitherto, and 
adopt the new ones. A state of permanent and universal Peace 
is to be brought about by the action of mind on mind, and of 
opinion upon opinion, until nations are induced to take measures 
to settle disputes, which may arise between them and which they 
may not be able to settle themselves, in the same way as peace¬ 
able individuals settle their disputes — by arbitration. I con¬ 
sider a congress of nations as the end, and not the means of 
accomplishing this great change. When all the individuals of a 
nation are changed, the nation itself is changed ; and when a 
majority of individuals are changed, the whole nation acts ac¬ 
cording to the will of the majority; and it is absurd to say, the 
opinion of an individual may be changed on this subject, and 
that the opinion of a wliole nation, or at least a majority of a 
nation, may not be changed. Therefore, he who has been in¬ 
strumental in changing the opinion of a single individual, has 
done something to hasten the time when the nations shall learn 
war no more. 

But still there is a lurking objection. It may be said that it is 
not enough that the opinion of one nation should be changed : 
it is necessary to change the opinion of the whole world, before 
we can insure permanent and universal Peace. How is the opin- 


27 


ion of the whole world to be changed ? Is it not by the same 
means that the opinion of individuals is changed 1 Will not the 
general opinion of one nation have an effect on another nation, 
just as the opinion of one individual has an effect on another in¬ 
dividual ? Has not Great Britain had a wonderful effect on this 
country, in the cause of emancipation ? and has not this country 
had an equal effect on Great Britain, in the cause of temper¬ 
ance 1 Has not Great Britain moved the whole Ciiristian world, 
by her efforts to abolish the slave-trade ? and has not this coun¬ 
try done the same in its efforts to abolish intemperance ? It is 
not necessary to the success of our cause that the whole world 
should be moved at once. The progress of moral light ever 
has been, and always will be, gradual. Let Great Britain and 
America adopt the peace principles, and they not only will keep 
peace between themselV'Cs, by leaving their disputes to arbitra¬ 
tion, as has already been done, but this policy will have an effect 
on France and other nations; and it will induce a nation to 
lend its aid to prevent war among its neighbors. Had it not been 
for the progress of peace principles in Great Britain, we should 
at this moment have been engaged in a bloody war with France; 
and all this has been done without eradicating the human pas¬ 
sions. 

It is in the power of the church of Christ to put an end to the 
wars in Christendom, whenever she shall choose to do it. Let 
the church give her testimony against war as unequivocally as 
she has heretofore given it in favor of war ; and the savage and 
unchristian custom will be abolished in those countries where 
Christianity has an influence. The ecclesiastical bodies in 
Great Britain have not only given their testimony against slavery 
in the British dominions, but some of them are exerting an influ¬ 
ence in this country, by sending messages and delegates to 
our religious conventions. Let us return the compliment, 
and send messages and delegates to them, enforcing the princi¬ 
ples of Peace: and while they remonstrate against the slavery 
of the black man in this country, let us, in brotherly love, point 
out to them the greater slavery of the white man in their own 
country ; for there is not a consistent Christian who would not 
rather be a whip-galled slave on a rice plantation, than an im¬ 
pressed seaman on board a British man-of-war. W hat man is 


28 


there, that has embraced the principles of Christ, who would not 
rather suffer himself, than make others suffer ? or who would' 
not endure all the ills of negro slavery, rather than send a fellow- 
creature to eternal perdition ? But, alas, we see the mote in our 
brother’'s eye sooner than the beam in our own eye. 

From the success which has already attended (he cause of 
Peace, its friends have every encouragement to press forwardy 
and exert themselves to restore the human passions, cormpted by 
the custom of war, to their primitive purity and utility, as far as 
can be done with our fallen nature. 


SECTION X. 

The ohjcctwriy that no special effor't is necessary^ considered^ 

The greatest obstacle to the success of the cause of Peace 
originates, not in any objection to our principles, but, in the opin¬ 
ion that 710 special effort is iiecessary^ that the ordinary preach¬ 
ing of the gospel is fully sufficient of itself to abolish the custom 
of war. “ Make all men Christians, and wars wilt cease of them¬ 
selves,” say the objectors. 

This is a most formidable obstacle to the success of peace so¬ 
cieties, because the objection is made by pious and good men, 
who acknowledge our principles to be correct, but who make use 
of it to quiet their consciences, while they refuse us their counte¬ 
nance and co-operation. The objection allows on the face of if, 
that war is inconsistent with the gospel; for if it be not, if the 
gospel sanctions war in any case whatsoever, how will preaching 
the gospel put an end to it ? If the gospel allowed of fornica¬ 
tion, adultery, theft, or murder, in any case, how would the 
preaching of the gospel ever put an end to those sins ? 

I fear there is something like insincerity in those ministers of 
the gospel who make use of Uiis objection to excuse themselves 
for refusing to take an active part in this great work. I will 
give an instance. A preacher of the gospel once said to me. 
Sir, I cannot join you ; your principles are too low — far below 
the gospel standard. Now 1 go farther than you do, for I am 
opposed to all war on all occasions.” ‘‘Well, sir,” I replied.. 




29 


“ have you ever preached on that subject ? ” “ Why, no ; almost 

half the male members of my church are militia officers, and I 
should injure my usefulness.” “ Then, sir, you are the very man 
to preach these principles ; ‘ Christ came not to call the righteous^ 
but sinners, to repentance.’ How can you say you go further 
than I do, when you have never budged an inch 7 ” The min¬ 
ister was offended, and withdrew his subscription from the peace 
society. This is not a singular case ; I have known many such ' 
I do not mean many who have withdrawn their subscription, but 
many who never subscribed and have discouraged others from 
subscribing, on the plea that the ordinary preaching of the gos¬ 
pel is sufficient to put an end to the custom of war, but who have 
never preached a sermon against war, nor ever given an intima¬ 
tion in any sermon that they are opposed to it. If there is not 
insincerity in such conduct, there is certainly inconsistency. I ac¬ 
knowledge that by preaching the whole gospel truth on this sub¬ 
ject, a minister lays himself liable to persecution ; but if the fear 
of man prevents his declaring the whole counsel of God, is he a 
good soldier of the cross 7 and how can he answer it to his 
Master 7 

Is not this objection as valid against the temperance cause, as 
it is against the cause of Peace 7 Why not say, “ there is no 
need of any temperance societies: preach the gospel, — and 
when all men become Christians, intemperance will cease.” The 
same objection may be brought against any benevolent enter¬ 
prise. But daily experience confutes this reasoning. The gos¬ 
pel has been preached these eighteen hundred years, and yet we 
liave seen that, until lately, pious and good men, in regular 
standing in the church as deacons and private Christians, have 
made and sold the poison, and put the bottle to their neighbor’s 
mouth. So, to the present day, good men have engaged in war, 
and prayed for the success of their arms, and have got up from 
their knees and gone out and shot down their fellow-creatures, 
and sent immortal souls — each worth an empire — to endless 
perdition ; and the church has looked on with approbation ; and 
offered her prayers for victory ; and sent out her chaplains ; and 
consecrated monuments of war; and her members have even 
taken the instruments of death into their own hands and joined 


30 


in the bloody conflict. The first Indian killed at Lovell’s fight, 
was shot and scalped by a minister of the gospel. Without a 
great change, both in preaching and practice, when are we to ex¬ 
pect wars to cease ? I am happy to say that a change has al¬ 
ready commenced, and more than a thousand ministers, of the 
different denominations of Christians, are now pledged to preach 
in favor of the cause of Peace at least once a year j and already 
we see the happy effects. 

Were there no Christians engaged in our two wars with Great 
Britain, on both sides? It is related of a church in Vermont, 
near the Canada line, and composed partly of Canadians, that 
during the revolutionary war, the members partook of the sa¬ 
crament together on the Sabbath, and before the next Sabbath 
these Christian members of the same church were engaged in 
battle, sending one another to their last account, to appear before 
their awful Judge, red with their brother’s blood. 

I acknowledge that the number of pious persons in an army 
is comparatively small; for, according to Dr. Doddridge, in his 
life of Col. Gardiner, in the army “ the temptations are so many 
and the prevalence of the vicious characters so great, that it may 
seem no inconsiderable praise and felicity to be free from disso¬ 
lute vice ; and the few who do escape should be reckoned heroes 
indeed and highly favored of Heaven.” Yet pious persons send 
their children to military academies, to learn the art of human 
butchery, and thereby expose them to all these temptations. 
Few indeed have the courage, like Capt. Thrush of the British 
army, to resign their commissions and give up their pay because 
on examination, they have found that war is utterly inconsistent 
with the spirit of the gospel. I believe that British officers, es¬ 
pecially in India, have put off their red coats during a temporary 
peace, and put on their black ones, and taken furlough to go and 
preach the gospel to those very nations they had just been fight¬ 
ing against, and who would again return to their bloody work 
as soon as orders for war should arrive from government. I am 
very sure that I have seen such accounts from India within 
twenty years, but may possibly be mistaken. But what incon¬ 
sistency would there be in it for a fighting Christian ? If it be 
right to fight the natives, and right to preach the gospel to them. 


31 


■where is the great harm ia tlie same person doing both alter¬ 
nately ? But how long must such a gospel be preached before 
wars will cease ? 

But does any one say that Christians should be allowed to 
murder one another and destroy unbelievers until all men become 
Christians 7 Should nothing be done in the meantime to set a 
better example to the heathen, and show them, by example, 
the wonderful loveliness of the Christian religion 7 If any 
should say that the preaching of the gospel by ordained minis¬ 
ters is amply sufficient to abolish the custom of war without 
peace societies, peace tracts, and periodicals, agents, conventions, 
speeches, resolutions, newspaper essays, and all the other means 
which are made use of to act on public opinion in favor of the 
cause of Peace as well as the cause of temperance, why, then, 
if they are ministers, let them preach on the subject, and preach 
often. But, alas ! for consistency, those ministers who object to 
peace societies and rely on preaching alone, are generally the 
very ones who never preach at all on the subject. 

A great reason of the general prevalence of this opinion, is, 
that men have mistaken the means for the end. They say. 
Make all men Christians, and wars will cease ; while we say, 
You must abolish war before you can make all men Christians. 
War is probably the greatest obstacle to the conversion of the 
heathen and the prevalence of vital piety in Christian countries; 
and therefore it is the duty of every Christian to do what he can 
to moderate its ferocity, lessen its frequency, and finally to put an 
end to it. 

Since writing the above, I have received a copy of the prize 
peace essay of the Bangor Theological Seminary. The author 
has some excellent remarks on this subject; what I wish to add, 
is as follows : 

“ The grand measure to be employed for the abolition of war, 
as of any evil, is the promulgation of Christianity. But the uni¬ 
versal promulgation of Christianity cannot be effected at once. 
Must we remain idle, in regard to the peace enterprise, until this 
vast work is fully accomplished, and the world is evangelized 7 
As well might Wilberforce have aimed at the extinction of the 
slave-trade only through the thorough Christianization of the 
British people ! As well might it be affirmed that we may hope 


32 


to effect the reformation of a dissolute friend only by effecting 
his regeneration in the orthodox sense. Tlie world must be 
taken as it is. A good enterprise must not be suffered to lan¬ 
guish, because it cannot be prosecuted in just the way we wish. 
Effective means may be employed for the abolition of many an 
evil, under the full sanction of Christianity and in full accord¬ 
ance with its principles, while itself is not visibly engaged as 
their antagonist.” 


SECTION XL' 

Fear of consequences. 

There is a large class of objections against the cause of 
Peace, which are urged by those who cannot deny the con¬ 
formity of our principles with the religion of Christ, “in the ab¬ 
stract,” but which are suggested by the fear of consequences^ 
should the principles of peace -be adopted in the present state of 
society. 

One of the most powerful objections which arises from this 
cause, is the fear that, if a whole nation should adopt the pacific 
principles laid down in the gospel, it would become an easy prey 
to other nations. They say, for instance, “If we, in this coun¬ 
try, should adopt the pacific policy, we should be immediately 
subjugated by Great Britain.” If you ask the objector, “If the 
British nation should adopt the pacific policy, would they be in 
danger from us?” “Oh, no,” is the reply. But what reason is 
there to believe that we are so much better than they ? If 
they would be safe from us, why should not we be safe from 
them ? 

But our main inquiry should be, whether the principles of 
peace be agreeable to the precepts of the gospel; and not, what 
would be the consequences of acting up to the principles of him 
whom we call our Master. If the wisdom of man be superior to 
the wisdom of God, we should have no need of a revelation from 
Heaven. Our Master tells us, not to fear “those who have 
power to kill the body, and after that have no more that they 
can do ; but to fear him who, after he hath killed, hath power to 


33 


cast into hell.'’ Had Daniel acted on the fear of consequences, 
lie would have ceased praying*, at the command of Darius. Had 
the three children acted on the fear of consequences, they would 
have worshipped the golden image. Had Paul acted on the fear 
of consequences, he never would have gone up to Jerusalem, 
wheie he knew that bonds and imprisonment awaited him. 
Would the apostles and the primitive Christians, that “noble 
army of martyrs,” have preached Christ crucified, if they had 
been moved by a cowardly fear of consequences ? Would not 
Maximilian, Marcellus, Taracus, and a host of other Christian 
heioes, have consented to enlist in the Roman armies, if they 
had feared the ignominious death which awaited them more than 
the displeasure of their blessed Redeemer ? God knows how to 
succor those who trust in him, and to deliver them from the 
power of the lions, or the fiery furnace, when it shall be most 
for his glory and the good of his creatures, or to take them to 
their reward when they have done the work appointed them. 

But the danger of making the precepts of Christ the rule of 
our conduct, is not so great as is apprehended. I need not here 
mention the case of the (Quakers in this country, or the Mora¬ 
vians in Ireland, as they are already familiar to the public. Nor 
will I be very particular in giving an account of the adventure 
of Maj. Gray, who commanded an exploring party sent by the 
British government into the interior of Africa. He found that 
the strongest walled cities in that barbarous country had become 
a prey to war. At length he came to Barra Cunda, “ which was 
surrounded only by a slight stake fence interwoven with thorn 
bushes;” and this city was perfectly secure and safe ; and no 
one had molested it. “ This arises,” says the major, “ from their 
never engaging in war.” 

But a late event has taken place in Africa, which threatened, 
for awhile, to shake the foundations of the hopes of safety from 
the adoption of pacific principles, and which seemed to say, “if 
you will live godly in Christ .lesus, you must suffer,” and that 
the Christian who should put in practice the precepts of his Mas¬ 
ter, would be sure to smart for it. I allude to the attack on the 
colony at Bassa Cove, or Port Cresson. When I read in the 
newspapers, that this colony had been attacked by the ferocious 
natives, and twenty ‘ members of it butchered in cold blood, I 


31 


must confess that my faith in the safety of the pacific policy was 
for a moment shaken. Horror seized hold of me. Appetite and 
sleep forsook me. What a triumph to our opponents ! I retired 
to bed, but not to sleep. I prayed earnestly for light; and before 
morning I got composed by th.e reflection that this account we 
have heard from only one side; and that it appeared, from the 
very face of it, that tlie massacre was the work of retaliation for 
an injury received ; and therefore I concluded to wait and hear 
the whole matter, before I gave up my faith in the efficacy of 
pacific principles, when fairly tried, to protect those who put their 
trust in them. The men who gave tiie account, are the same 
who gave the provocation, and it is likely they will make the 
best of it, especially as there is no one to contradict them. At 
length 1 procured a Liberia Herald, which is now before me, and 
I shall make such extracts from it as will tend to throw some 
light upon the subject. The paper is dated at Monrovia, August 
7, 1835, fifty-eight days after the transaction, and contains a 
letter dated Edina, June 16, from R. McDowell, who seemed to 
be a principal actor in tlie affair, to the editor of the Herald. 

It seems from this account, that some of the emigrants settled 
at Bassa Cove applied to the settlers at Edina for protection 
against the natives, who, they said, “had beaten and wounded 
several of their people;'’ from which it appears that there had 
been a quarrel between the settlers and the natives. Capt. 
Weaver, the chief magistrate at Edina, sent a messenger to 
learn the cause of the riot, with an offer of assistance, who re¬ 
turned with a message from Mr. Harkinson, the agent at Bassa 
Cove, stating, that when he wanted the Edina people, he 
would send for them ; ” but, contrary to the wishes of the agent, 
Capt. Yfeaver sent a party of thirt}^ armed men. In two hours 
they returned with the intelligence that he “did not want, and 
did not thank them for their interference.” Notwilhstandina: all 
this, Capt. Weaver, on pretence that the natives had dared the 
Edina people to come on, sent the armed men back again, who, 
finding in their route a salt town recently deserted, they burnt it 
and fired into the surrounding bushes, where they concluded the 
inhabitaiits had retired. On coming to the agent’s, Capt. 
Weaver offered to leave a guard with him, to which he imme¬ 
diately objected, and said “ he was convinced that their motives 


35 


for interference were from a jealousy of trade and a loish to 
break up the settlement^ So, after having excited tlie enmity 
of the natives, by burning one of their towns and firing into 
their place of retreat, they retired and left the settlers to take the 
consequences. The subsequent tragedy took place. Tweny of 
the settlers (seventeen, by more recent accounts) were murdered, 
and some houses were burnt; but the agency house and its in¬ 
mates were spared. In the meatime, the Edina people, who 
had provoked the aggression, sent no assistance at the time of 
need, content to set guards around their own settlement. 

This is a concise account, condensed from the*Liberia Herald. 
1 learned last winter, from Elliot Cresson, in lionor of whom the 
settlement at Bassa Cove has been named Port Cresson, that the 
quarrel originated in a dispute about a quarter of a dollar, which 
a native claimed as his due for work, and which the colonist re* 
fused to pay; and it seems that numbers were drawn into the 
quarrel, and it is probable that blows were given and received on 
both sides. Had the quarter of a dollar been paid, all would 
liave been well. Had the Edina people kept away and made 
no demonstration of their force, burnt no town, nor fired into 
any thicket where they supposed the natives lay concealed, it is 
probable the whole affair would have ended with a few bloody 
noses and broken heads. It is much the same with all wars. 
A spark often lights them up. The quarter of a dollar was 
probably of as much importance to the native laborer, as the sum 
of five millions of dollars, due from France to the United States, 
was to us. On the whole, after getting all the information I can 
on this subject, I am fully of the opinion that this case, so fiir 
from weakening the argument in favoi of the pacific policy 
drawn from actual experiment, only confirms ih But, to be pro¬ 
tected by the principles of Peace, one should be consistent, and 
put on the whole armor of the Christian. A failuie in one point 
may be fatal. 

There arc many other incontrovertible arguments and facts, 
which could be brought on this question^ but to state them all 
would require a volume, instead of a single section. Aftei all, I 
am not pleading the doctrine of expediency, but only attempting 
to show that following the precepts of Christ is not so dangerous 
to our tempral welfare as some appear to apprehend. 


36 


SECTION XII. 

The objection^ that the time has not yet come to bring forward 
the cause of Peace^ considered. 

Another objection, not against our principles, but against 
any endeavors, at j)rese7it^ to oppose the custom of war, is raised 
by those who say, the time is not coined 

Procrastination has been the ruin of thousands of precious 
souls; yet it is often pleaded by pious men as an excuse for ap¬ 
athy and sluggishness in their Master’s service. But I would 
ask, what reason has any one for saying the time has not come? 
Are we, who are now on the stage of action, to expect any better 
time for us to occupy our talent in the cause of Peace, rather 
than to hide it in a napkin, and thereby forfeit the blessing 
which our Saviour pronounced on the peacemakers, that “ they 
shall be called the children of God”? 

I would say to my readers, of either sex, if they are young,— 
This is the very time to guard your youthful minds against the 
delusions of war. Youth are fond of excitement; and the 
drum, the trumpet, and other instruments of martial music, are 
calculated for excitement. The books you read are likely to 
prejudice your minds in favor of war, with all its wickedness 
and its fatal effects, both temporal and eternal. The pictures 
and statues which you see, are intended to raise your admiration 
of those who have figured on the bloody field; and in fact, al¬ 
most everything around you in this'fallen world, tends to inspire 
you with a delight in military glory. therefore, is the 

time, before the prejudices of education become indelible, to 
search the scriptures, and see if the spirit of war be at all con¬ 
sistent with the spirit of the gospel. Search, and you will find 
that “those things which are highly esteemed among men, are 
abomination in the sight of God.” Read the peace publications. 
Study the subject with a determination to learn your duty. Judge 
not a cause before you have heard it, lest it should be found foljy 
and shame unto you, both in this life and that which is to come. 
Seek the things which make for peace, if you mean to enjoy 


37 


peace of mind and ihe Saviour’s benediction. Give no counte¬ 
nance to war, by attending military parades. Were there no 
spectators, there would be no military display. A soldier in uni¬ 
form feels as though he were a head taller when a troop of boys 
and girls are following at his heels. 

Are you past the age of boyhood? You may soon be called 
upon to decide, whether you will give your testimony in favor of 
the horrid and demoralizing custom of war, or not: for you may 
be called on to do militia duty, and encounter all the temptations 
of the muster-field, and be exposed to the example of intemper¬ 
ance, profanity, and probably of licentiousness. On your decis¬ 
ion may-hang your eternal destiny. As you value your immor¬ 
tal soul, I conjure you to keep away from such scenes. Now 
is the time for you to decide. If you once submit, it will be dif¬ 
ficult for you to refuse hereafter. Make up your mind, and plead 
the liberty of conscience guarantied to you by the constitution, 
and to which you have as good a right as a duaker, a Shaker, 
or a Moravian. You may suffer for it, — but if you suffer for 
conscience sake, you will not lose your reward. 

Are you a parent ? Noio is the time to determine whether 
you will bring up your children to follow Moloch or Christ, for 
they cannot follow both at once. If you are determined to do 
what you can to promote the cause of Peace, and to help on the 
millennium, see to it that the minds of your children are not 
poisoned with military toys, or poems, or novels, or plays, which 
breathe the spirit of war. Your children will be, on this subject, 
but what you make them. Mothers, remember that “ those who 
rock the criidle rule the world.” 

Are you advanced in life ? Now is the time to exert yourself 
for the good of your age, if you have never done it before. Now 
is the time to secure the peacemaker’s blessing, before you go 
hence to be no more seen. Would you, an aged person, die 
without having done anything to promote the cause so dear to 
the heart of your Redeemer ? How can you go to Heaven, and 
tell him that you lived a long life, and you often heard the bless¬ 
ing which he pronounced on the peacemakers, but you never 
ofiered a prayer or a cent to obtain it ? 

I must confess that I have hitherto used my text rather by way 
of accommodation, and that our opponents mean that the right 


3S 


time has not come, with resj3ect to the world at large, in which 
to push the peace enterprise. They say that, in the present 
state of society^ it would not be safe to adopt the gospel princi¬ 
ples, and we must wait until the state of society is improved and 
mankind become more inclined to peace, before it will be right 
to disseminate peace principles. 

There is a great absurdity on the very face of this objection. It 
is to improve the state of society and incline mankind to peace, 
that the friends of peace endeavor to enforce their principles, 
both by precept and example. If the state of society were such 
as they wish to have it before any effort were made, there would 
be no need of the effort, for the work would have already been 
done. As well might it have been said that the time is not come 
to forward the temperance reform, and that, in the present state 
of society^ while there are so many who drain the maddening 
bowl, the attempt will be useless, and that we must wait until the 
world become more temperate, before we begin so great a refor¬ 
mation. 1 thank God, that such arguments had no weight with 
tlie first movers in the temperance cause. 

"VVhat better time than the present can we expect, to promote 
the great object of abolishing the custom of war 'I The world is 
now hushed to peace. There is scarcely a speck of war in the • 
horizon. It is true, we have open hostilities with the original 
proprietors of a part of our soil; low and hollow murmurs of 
civil war come from the republics beyond our southern frontier; 
and some fear that our mobs and civil commotions are but the 
precursors of a civil war in our own country ; and a few vivid 
flaslies are seen from time to time from across the Atlantic ; — all 
the effects of internal strife. With these exceptions, all seems 
hushed to peace; but it may be the calm which precedes 
a hurricane. The world is at peace, not from principle, but, 
from expediency. A long, bloody, and expensive war among 
the nations of Europe, has exhausted their resources and impov¬ 
erished the people, and they are tired of war. Fatigued and 
drunk with blood, the monster, war, seeks repose to fit himself 
for another conflict. Now is our time. Let us make haste and 
shear off his locks while he sleeps, and rid the world of him for-' 
ever. Now may be the only opportunity for centuries to come. 

But some say, “ The world is now at peace, and what more 


39 


would you have ? It is time enough to bestir ourselves to pro¬ 
mote the cause of Peace when we are actually involved in wav.” 
What would the world think of the wisdom of that ship-master 
who should neglect the opportunity afforded him by a calm, to 
prepare against a storm? Who would praise the wisdom of that 
philanthropist who, wishing to reform an intemperate neighbor, 
should wait till he was dead drunk before he attempted to show 
him his folly and wickedness?^ Thank God, the nations are now 
sober, and may be convinced of the folly and wickedness of war; 
but if we w'ait until the storm rages, until they are intoxicated 
with revenge, hatred, a love of military glory, and all the direful 
passions and lusts from which wars proceed, 

“ You may as well go stand upon the beach, 

And bid the sea to ’bate its wonted roar. 

You may as well plead pity with a wolf.” 

No, now" is the accepted time ; and the man who would put 
ofl* the reformation of the world to a more convenient season, 
which he may think a time of war to be, resembles the sluggard, 
wdio would not shingle his house in fair weather, because there 
was no need of it then ; nor in a storm, because it was not a 
proper time. Now we may oppose all war, without being ac¬ 
cused of opposing government; and if we use our privilege now, 
we may oppose any war, hereafter, without the imputation of 
party spirit. 


SECTION XIII. 

Ayyrehcnsion of 'pirates and robbers. 

There are many persons who are well disposed to the cause 
of Peace, and who believe that the principle of total abstinence 
from all war is in perfect accordance with the principles of the 
gospel, but who are very much afraid of going too far. They 
.fear that if the principles of Peace were adopted to the full ex¬ 
tent which would be justified by the precepts of Christ, liierally 
interpreted, in their most obvious meaning, we should be unable 
to apprehend pirates and robbers. 


40 


I must confess that these objections were for some years a great 
stumbling-block to me, and that it was not until after deep re¬ 
flection and meditation, that my mind became clear on this sub¬ 
ject. And when I consider that it has been only step by step, 
and feeling my way for a long time, that I have been able to 
surmount them, I cannot expect to bring all my readers at once 
to agree with me. 

The great question seems to be, whether we shall adopt the 
precepts of Christ, in their plain, evident meaning —a meaning 
which accords with the precepts which he laid down on all occa¬ 
sions and on all other points; and a meaning which is enforced 
by the precepts and example of the holy apostles and primitive 
Christians;—or whether we shall accommodate these precepts 
to our notions of the fitness of things, and to our own times. I 
say, our own times; for Christians generally allow that these 
precepts are to be literally interpreted in the millennium, but 
fear that, in the 'present state of society^ it would not be safe to 
adopt them to their full extent. 

In the first place, it becomes us to inquire how far the precepts 
of the gospel really do go. These precepts are intended to reg¬ 
ulate the heart — the affections. So far as any external action 
may be perfectly consistent with these precepts, so far it is allowed 
by our holy religion. Now the law of love does not forbid the 
exercise of forcible constraint in all cases. On the contraiy, 
the exercise of forcible constraint is sometimes required by the 
law of love. It ma}’ be necessary sometimes to use physical 
force to keep a person, in the delirium of a fever, in his bed. It 
may be necessary to confine a madman in a straight waistcoat, 
or even in chains. A drunkard who scatters abroad “ firebrands, 
arrows, and death,” may be made to desist by force. In all these 
cases, the use of physical force may not be contrary to the law 
of love, but in perfect consistency with it. And when the sick 
man gets well, or the lunatic and the drunkard are restored to 
their reason, they will thank you for your kindness in interfering. 

The principles of Peace, when carried to their utmost extern, 
not only allow of constraint by physical force, when that con¬ 
straint is consistent with the law of love, but even enjoin it. 
But here we stop. This is the end ; and if Christians would 
generally go thus far, and no farther, wars of every kind would 


41 


be abolished, wherever Christianity had any influence, without 
disturbing civil government. 

Again — a parent may find physical force absolutely necessary 
to subdue the temper of a stubborn and refractory child ; es¬ 
pecially before it has come to the age of reason. But the error 
is, that parents have depended too much on physical force, and 
too little on moral power. The child has seen passion and an¬ 
ger in the face of the parent, which has only excited similar 
passions in itself. There has been a disposition in the parent to 
make the child suffer, rather than suffer himself, and all his 
stripes have been worse than lost upon the child. This is strik¬ 
ingly illustrated in an affecting story which I have heard, of a 
father who had chastised his son repeatedly, but he grew worse 
and worse. He committed a great fault, for wdiich his father 
took him into a private room to whip him. But the recollection 
of the bad success which had attended this kind of discipline, 
melted the heart of the fiither. “ My son,” said he, what shall 
I do ? All my correction has done no good,” and he wept aloud. 

Oh, father,” said the son, ‘‘whip me as much as you please, 
only do not cry.” The work was done. The child was re¬ 
formed. The great principle of Christianity is, to suffer for oth¬ 
ers, rather than make others suffer. 

The great fault of civil government has been, that it has acted 
like an angry, vindictive parent; and its punishments have sel¬ 
dom or never reformed a criminal. There is no exercise of love 
and compassion toward the delinquent, but only of anger and mal¬ 
ice. I never shall forget the remark of a woman concerning a 
man accused of rape under aggravated circumstances. Said she, 
‘‘ I would swear to a lie to get that man hung.” The public 
often feels so. The man was tried and acquitted. 

But although I allow that physical foree may be used to a 
great extent without violating the law of love, I do not think that 
it ought to be carried, in any case, to the extent of depriving a 
fellow-creature of his life, and sending his soul to a miserable 
eternity. No circumstances whatever can justify it under the gos¬ 
pel dispensation. If the soul of acriminal existed but a thousand 
or a million of years in the torments of hell, some allowance 
might be made. But for eternity — no, no. No temporal good 
6 


42 


can compensate for the loss of an immortal soul. But the friends 
of Peace do not agree on the subject of capital punishment. 

After these general remarks, I proceed to take up the case of 
pirates and highway robbers. We have encouraged piracy and 
robbery on a large scale. We have sent our privateers and pub¬ 
lic armed vessels for the express purpose of robbery and slaugh¬ 
ter. The property of the innocent trader is seized on the high 
sea ; and if he resists, he is shot dead, agreeably to the law of 
nations in Christendom. AVhen our ships return loaded with 
plunder and prisoners, they are hailed with joyful acclamations, 
and the robbers are honored and applauded. 

The custom of war has brought these evils of piracy and 
highway robbery upon us ; and shall we use the actual existence 
of an evil as an argument for the continuance of a custom which 
' has brought it upon us. Suppose a drunken man was brought 
into my house in the last stage of the delirium tremens, and I 
should be told that unless I gave liim a dram of ardent spirits, he 
will die. I have none in the house. Shall I send to a drunkery 
to get it? Where will the keeper of the drunkery get it? At 
the wholesale dealer’s. Where will the wholesale dealer get it ? 
Of the distiller. Now shall 1 encourage the distiller, the whole¬ 
sale dealer, and the drunkery, or sulfer the man to take the 
chance of recovery ? Oertainly the latter, especially if the appa¬ 
rent necessity of ardent spirits, in this isolated case, is to be made 
an argument to oppose the cause of temperance and encourage 
the very system which brought the evil; for, if there had been 
no distilleries, there would have been no delirium tremens, — if 
there were no spirit of war in the community, there would be no 
pirates nor highway robbers. 

But is there no way of overcoming evil except by evil ? Mor¬ 
al resistance is much more effectual than physical resistance; 
and if I had room, I could adduce many instances in which 
moral resistance has been tried with complete success. True, it 
is not always successful, but it fails less frequently than the other ; 
and a Christian should consider that he ought to obey the pre¬ 
cepts of his Master under all circumstances, and leave the result 
with him. So long as God suffers sinful men in this world, he 
suffers other sinful men to resist them. I think our Saviour 


43 


would say in this case, ‘‘Let the dead bury their dead ; follow 
thou me.” 

As I cannot do justice to this subject in one section, I propose 
(o defer the case of mobs to my next; and after that to take up 

the interference of peace principles with civil government gen¬ 
erally. 


SECTION XIV. 

^ujipression of mobs. 

According to the promise in my last, I am now to take up 
the subject of suppressing’ mobs by physical force : for those 
who object to our principles say, “If they were generally (o pre¬ 
vail, there would be no way of putting down mobs, and therefore 
the peace enterprise should be abandoned—or at least, its sup¬ 
porters must give up their ultraism.” 

It would be a sufficient answer to this objection, to say, If our 
principles prevail, there will be no mobs. Did any one ever hear 
of a mob of (Quakers ? The spirit of a mob is the spirit of war. 
It is an attempt to overcome evil — or what the mob may think 
to be evil — with evil; and those who oppose the mob with deadly 
weapons, adopt the doctrine and follow the example of the mob ; 
for they too attempt to overcome evil with evil; and are even 
worse than the mob, for the mob seldom use deadly weapons un¬ 
til they are attacked. 

There are but two master-spirits abroad in the world with re¬ 
spect to this subject. One is the spirit of war, which attempts to 
overcome evil with evil, and is inherent in our corrupt natures. 
It is born with us, and unless our nature be changed by grace, it 
will die in us only when we die, and will revive again when we 
revive, to be our companion and tormentor forever. The other 
spirit is the spirit of peace and love ; — the spirit of Christ, who 
taught his disciples to overcome evil with good. This is not nat¬ 
ural to the human heart. It descended from Heaven, and is ac¬ 
counted foolishness by the world. That a change from the prin¬ 
ciples of w’ar to the principles of peace is attended with diiTicul- 
ties, I acknowledge ; but, for the most part, the}^ are only imag- 


44 


inary — perhaps wholly so. There is a lion in the way ; ” but 
if any one has the courage to approach him in the way of his 
duty, like the pilgrim, he will find him chained. Of two evils, 
we should choose the least; and perhaps both may be avoided 
by God’s blessing on judicious means. Let us trust to the wis¬ 
dom of God, rather than to our own ; and obey his precepts, 
however we may fear the consequences. Let us “do justly, 
love mercy, and walk humbly,” and “leave off contention before 
it be meddled with,” and leave the consequences to God. 

There was a time when rum was considered a universal pan¬ 
acea for all disorders of the body. If men were wet or dry, 
hot or cold, rum was the remedy. 0\ir medicines were almost 
all mixed with alcohol. It was the universal solvent. It was 
everywhere at hand. It was in every cupboard, and ready to 
be administered in all cases ; and it gratified the depraved appe¬ 
tite of all. It was therefore universally used. But men have at 
length found out that it is entirely unnecessary, and that it has 
done infinitely more hurt than good ; and other solvents have 
been substituted in its place. It is now the same with the law 
of violence, that it was once with rum. The sword is every¬ 
where in our Christian country. We have trooping and train¬ 
ing, forts and arsenals ; and the sword is continually suspended 
over our heads. It is the universal remedy for all diseases of the 
body politic, gratifying to our depraved natures, and while we 
jove and trust to it, we shall seek no other. There was a time 
when the torture and the rack were thought to be the best 
means of preventing crime. The criminal was broken on the 
wheel, stretched on the rack, crucified, and hung up alive with 
a hook thrust through his ribs, and left to expire in torments. 
This was thought to be the best remedy for crime ; and it grati¬ 
fied the diabolical passions of a corrupt nature. Heresies in 
religion were cured by much the same means, but exceeding 
them in protracted cruelty. Torment was thought the best 
remedy for evils in the church ; and a man’s body was burned 
for the good of his soul. The world has at length found its ^ 
error; and though I fear there is not yet much love to heretics or 
criminals, the law of violence is found to be no cure for the evil 
it would remedy. Men have grown wiser in the above-men¬ 
tioned particulars, and torture has been abandoned, because it 


45 


was found to be inexpedient; but they still continue to use tlie 
sword as a sovereign remedy for certain other disorders of the 
body politic. But is there no other? Has Christ, the great 
physician of souls, provided no other remedy than brute force,' 
suited only to govern the brute creation, and not always the 
wisest, even then ? When we have abandoned the law of vio¬ 
lence, we shall seek other remedies, and not till then. Is the 
rich man in danger of losing his property or life by a lawless 
mob ? — let him seek rather to prevents than cure the evil by 
such hasty remedies as are often worse than the disease. Let 
him give his money liberally for the support of common and 
Sabbath schools, preaching the gospel, instructing the ignorant, 
and relieving the necessitous. It will be for his interest to see 
that all the children in the country are religiously educated, 
whether he value religion for himself or not. This is the proper 
preventive of mobs, the true antidote, and the only remedy 
worthy of a Christian people. 

There is no telling what may be the consequence of putting 
down a mob by the cannon’s mouth. Remember the ever- 
memorable fifth of March, when a Boston mob was put down by 
British regulars. The soldiers acted according to law, and were 
pronounced not guilty by a jury of their countrymen ; but look 
at the consequences. The party which, for a time, was put 
down by the law of violence, finally triumphed, and a separation 
of the British empire ensued ; an event which, however dreaded 
then, Americans now boast of, and build monuments to com¬ 
memorate it. The suppression of another mob by violence may 
be followed by another separation of the empire, equally dreaded 
now, and equally applauded hereafter. 

The way in which Christ conquered the powers of darkness, 
was by suffering ; and the only lawful way for a Christian to 
conquer, is by suffering when he cannot overcome evil with good. 
This would very rarely be the case, even in barbarous and 
heathen countries, and still more rarely in Christian countries. 
But when a Christian cannot succeed in overcoming evil with 
good, he must suffer ; his Saviour did so from choice ; all but one 
of his apostles did so; the primitive Christians did so; they all 
overcame evil by suffering ; and by that very suffering they accom¬ 
plished their object— the spread of the Christian religion over the 
known world, in defiance of the power of the Roman government. 


46 


I know that to many this appeal’s a strange doctrine, and as 
new as strange. But it is not new. It is as old as Christianity ; 
it cannot be denied without denying Christianity, and it must 
prevail before ever we sliall see the milleniuin. Many changes 
must take place before that time. The law of violence must be 
abandoned. Not only must religious persecution and the torture 
of criminals be given up, but the use of the sword, and many 
other unchristian practices. We now look upon religious perse¬ 
cutions and the torture of criminals and witches as belonging to 
the dark ages ; but before the millenium comes, the nineteenth 
century will be reckoned among them. 

If men duly considered the infinite value of the soul, they 
would not destroy a single life to save a whole city from confla¬ 
gration. I do not suppose that this argument will weigh much 
with men of the world. If they do not value their own souls, it 
is not to be expected that they will value the souls of their ene¬ 
mies. But the Christian values the souls of all alike, and would 
not send one of them to endless perdition to save his own life, 
much less his property. If, then, an attempt is made to put 
down a mob with deadly weapons, a Christian should have 
nothing to do with it, but leave it to the men of the world to do 
the world’s business. So long as God suffers the law of vio¬ 
lence to prevail in the earth, he may suffer a contrary violence 
to suppress it. 

But I am asked, “ What would you do, if an armed mob were 
coming to plunder and burn your house, murder yourself and 
your wife, ravish your daughters, and burn all your children 
at the stake?” And imagination is racked to invent a case, 
however improbable, in which a Christian would be justified in 
resorting to deadly weapons, in hopes, if overcome by his feel¬ 
ings he gives up the case, to found an argument on his conces¬ 
sion, in favor of war ; as anti-temperance men endeavor, from 
the use of rum in extreme cases to defend the grog-shop, the 
wholesale dealer, and the distillery. But let us examine the 
gospel. What did Christ and his apostles do in cases which 
come nearer to the supposition above stated, than any can be 
expected to do in these days? When the chief-priests and 
scribes and elders raised a mob, consisting of “ a great multi¬ 
tude,” to come out against him, did he use the sword ? Did he 


47 


Hot rebuke Peter for using it, and denounce the use of the sword 
forever after ? Did the apostles or early Christians use the 
sword in similar cases? No ; and both He and they left us an 
example that we should walk in his steps. 

Much more may be said against opposing a mob by deadly 
weapons ; but what 1 have said is, I think, enough to convince 
a candid Ciiristian, and I expect to convince no other. 


SECTION XV. 

The objection that, if the principles of Peace were generally 
adopted, it would destroy civil government, considered. 

I COME now to the last obstacle to the prevalence of Peace 
principles, which belongs to the class mentioned in my thirteenth 
section. It is also the last which I mean to discuss, before I 
begin to answer objections to our principles taken from the 
scriptures. The objection, which is the theme of this essay is, 
if the principles of Peace were generally adopted, it would 
destroy civil government. 

This is an objection of about two years standing. Indeed, it 
looks so formidable on the first view of it, that I wonder our 
opponents did not think of it long ago. Probably they would 
have done so, had they thought at all on the subject ; but those 
who do think, and think candidly, come over to our side. 

It should be understood, that the American Peace Society, as 
I think wisely, avoids the discussion of this and similar sub¬ 
jects, by not declaring either in favor of defensive war, or against 
it; therefore, objections of this class are of no force, when brought 
against the principles of that society. But it cannot be denied 
that a majority of those who take a deep interest in its con¬ 
cerns, myself included, contend for the strict application of the 
principles of the gospel to all our conduct, let the consequences 
be what they may. 

I might evade this subject, as it is not necessarily connected 
with the cause I advocate. It relates to the internal reguiations 
of a nation, and has no connection with international war. Op¬ 
posing the custom of war is our proper province ; and perhaps 


48 


we should leave this subject for the theologians and civilians to 
decide. If the magistrate should be allowed to use the sword in 
civil cases, where the accused is considered innocent until he is 
condemned by a jury of his equals, — I might almost say of his 
choice, — and by laws he has consented to live under ; all this 
would not justify international war. Even though we should 
consent, for argument’s sake, that a ruler is justified in punish¬ 
ing, even unto death, those over whom the providence of God 
has placed him, this would not justify a nation in taking the 
sword against another nation, over whom they have no jurisdic¬ 
tion. The principles of Peace, as laid down in the gospel, even 
when carried to their utmost extent of nonresistance, do not at all 
infringe on the rights of the magistrate, nor interfere with the 
'proper functions of civil government. 

In the first place, it must be conceded that if everybody adop¬ 
ted the principles of Peace to the utmost extent, it would leave 
nothing for the judicial part of civil government to do ; for the law 
of love w'ould take the place of the law of violence ; ofiences would 
be rare and would be forgiven, — or at the most, the offenders 
would only bear the natural punishment of their offences in the 
disgrace they would bring on themselves; there would be few or 
no crimes to punish ; the jails would be without tenants ; pillor¬ 
ies, dungeons, the gallows and the gibbet, would follow in the 
wake of thumb-screws and racks, the wheel and the fagot; and 
would only be remembered as the mementoes of a barbarous and 
bygone age. Yet all these were once thought necessary to the 
support of government and the security of the public. I very 
well remember when the whipping-post, the stocks andthe pil¬ 
lory, adorned the chief place of concoui'se in my native village. 
Already they would seem strange appendages to the court-house 
of a shire-town. 

I further concede, as I did in my thirteenth section, that phy¬ 
sical force may sometimes be used in perfect consistence with tire 
law of love. It is only when physical force is used to gratify 
malice, or is carided so far as to take life and send a sinful soul 
to endless perdition, that I am opposed to it. If any one con¬ 
tends that this can be done with perfect consistency with the law 
of love, I must confess I cannot agree with him. I cannot con¬ 
ceive how sending souls to endless misery, either by the sword of 


49 


the magistrate, or war, offensive or defensive, is consistent with 
the precepts, “ love your enemies,” resist not evil,” “ overcome 
evil with good,” (fcc. 

That the time is to come when the law of love is to take the place 
of the law of violence and mankind be governed by moral power 
instead of physical force, is evident to me from four considera¬ 
tions. 1. The law of violence is much less used now than it 
was formerly. The criminal code of most Christian nations has 
undergone a great change for the better since the cessation of-the 
late extensive and bloody wars of Europe ; and there is no rea¬ 
son to doubt that, as the world advances in civilization, refine¬ 
ment and Christian morals, this change will go on. 2. We 
never 7ioiu think of applying the law of violence to any case of 
church discipline. In refined society, disgrace is infinitely more 
feared than physical punishment — often more than death itself. 

3. As religious light increases, (he principles of Peace will ad¬ 
vance : and wars, which always have been the hotbed and nur¬ 
sery of crime, will gradually cease ; and when the laws of God 
shall no longer be trampled under foot by nations, with the con¬ 
sent and countenance of the church of Christ, individuals will 
be more in dread of offending the great Avenger of all wrongs. 

4. The prophecies plainly predict that such a time is to arrive. 
It is worthy of remark, that the cessation of crime is to be a con¬ 
sequence of the abolition of war, as in Isaiah xi. 1 — 9. The 
same prophecy which predicts the abolition of war, predicts also 
that the passions of wicked men •— under the similitude of the 
wolf, the bear, the lion, and the cockatrice — shall be tamed, so 
that they shall no more “ hurt or destroy in all my [God’s] holy 
mountain.” When wars shall cease, private violence will cease 
also. Again, in Hosea ii. 18, the prophet, speaking in the place 
of God, uses the same figurative language, with regard to the 
safety of the righteous from the assaults of the wicked, as it re¬ 
spects either individuals or nations, and adds, “I will break the 
bow and the sword and the battle out of the land, and will make 
them to lie down safely.” I have not room for the other prophe¬ 
cies, but refer the reader to his Bible. I think the great error has 
been, that Christians have looked upon the cessation of war as a 
conscijuGiicc of general holiness, instead of the cciiisQ of it. How 
can the church expect general holiness while she allows a custom 

7 


60 


which is the fruitful mother of every abomination ? I allow that 
there is in this, as well as in other reforms, a reaction between 
cause and effect. Holiness and Peace go hand in hand. As 
w'ars become less frequent, crimes wall gradually cease ; and as 
men become more inclined to holiness, they will be less inclined 
to war. But this could not be the case, if waging w^ar were at 
all consistent wdth the Christian virtues. 

The great question is, How shall w’e behave, until God grants 
us. the millenium, in answer to our prayers and our exertions? 
Shall w’e continue to overcome evil wdth evil ? or shall we over¬ 
come evil wdth good ? Shall we, for an injury received, take 
vengeance into our own hand ? or employ the magistrate as the 
minister of vengeance ? or shall we leave vengeance to Him wdio 
hath said, ‘^Vengeance is mine?” Let every one answ’er these 
questions according to the dictates of his owai conscience. 

But, however Christians may settle these questions, so far as it 
relates to themselves, another question remains. What is the 
duty of a magistrate, in case of a violation of law ? 1 answ'er, 

let him exercise his functions in a manner consistent with the 
law of love: but how far he can use physical force consistently 
with that law, must depend upon circumstances ; and men per¬ 
haps will never agree on the circumstances w'hich would warrant 
a resort to violence. This difference of opinion ought not to in¬ 
terfere with the cause of Peace. 

Civil government is necessary, and probably always will be so, 
even in the millenium. It is necessary to regulate the inter¬ 
course of nations, to watch over the health and welfare of the 
people, to make laws declaratory of what is right and w'hat is 
wTong, and to give force and efficacy to public opinion. So far 
is the propagation of the principles of Peace, to their utmost ex¬ 
tent, from being subversive of government, they are the only 
principles on wdiich government can stand, consistently with the 
liberty of the people. 

But is there no way of governing a country except by physi¬ 
cal force? Our churches are not governed by it. It was tried 
once in the church, in the dark ages, and wdiat bloody scenes 
and awful sins it caused ! The public are not generally gov¬ 
erned by it. Not one man in a thousand fears corporal punish¬ 
ment for crime so much as he does the disgrace attached to it. 


4 


51 


We do not generally allow that brethren — whether we take the 
word in its natural or religious sense — should go to law with one 
another; nor if one brother be injured by another, that he should 
avenge himself, or seek vengeance from the law. Is there any 
duty incumbent on Christians, which is not incumbent on all the 
world ? 

I acknowledge that much doubt and difficulty still hangs over 
this subject. Although it has been long on my mind, 1 never 
broached it until I heard it from others. I do not think that, in 
the present state of the Peace enterprise, it is a profitable subject 
of discussion. Let us walk by the light and improve the knowl¬ 
edge w’e have, and more will be given us. But as this objection 
has been often of late thrown in our waay by our opponents, I 
could not consistently pass it over without some notice. 


SECTION XVI. 

Objections to the 'princi'ples of Peace brought from the thir¬ 
teenth chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Rornajis. 

Finding my remarks on the obstacles and objections to the 
cause of Peace increasing be 3 "ond my first intentions, I had re¬ 
solved to let wdiat waas said in the last section, on the objection 
that the prihciples of Peace, if generally adopted, would destroy 
civil government, suffice, when I received a communication from 
a lady, already well knowm in the benevolent operations of the 
day, to whose departed brother the cause of Peace is under great 
obligations. As her remarks are very pertinent to the subject, 
and ought not to be lost to the Christian public, I here insert 
them in preference to anything of mine. After having made 
some general observations on Peace and war, she continues 
thus: — 

I shall now endeavor to give my views on this portion of 
sacred writ, because it is a part of the Scriptures wrested more 
frequently than any other from its true import, in order to coun¬ 
tenance the system of w’ar, and delude the perverted reason of 
man into a belief that he is only fulfilling the divine command, 


52 


when he yields himself as a voluntary agent of “ the powers 
that be,” to go forth to spread devastation and death among 
those whom he ought to cherish as brethren, and to pray for his 
fellow-sinners, for whom Christ poured out his precious blood — 
those who are heirs of a glorious immortality, or of an incon¬ 
ceivable state of eternal misery. 

I presume it is known that the division of the Bible into chap¬ 
ters and verses is purely arbitrary, and is comparatively a modern 
invention, being utterly unknown to the ancient Christians j 
the want of judgment manifested in the partition, which often 
destroys the relation between passages closely connected, must 
be obvious to every attentive reader. 

“ Nothing is more important than to keep in view the su¬ 
preme sovereignty of God, and that his laws must be paramount 
to those enacted by man ; the scriptures afford some striking illus¬ 
tration of the distinction between rendering that obedience to a 
magistrate which violates the command of God, and that passive 
obedience which submits to suffering for righteousness sake. 
When Darius made a decree that “ whosoever shall ask a peti¬ 
tion of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O King, 
he shall be cast into the den of lions.” What was the con¬ 
duct of Daniel? “When Daniel knew that the writing was 
signed, he went into his house, and his windows being open to¬ 
ward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three' times a day, 
and prayed and gave thanks before his God as he did aforetime.” 
He refused obedience to this unrighteous decree, although he 
had expressly declared that “ God setteth up kings,” because a 
compliance with it would have been a direct infringement of 
that law uttered by Jehovah himself from Mount Sinai. “ Thou 
shall have no other Gods before me.” And what was the con¬ 
sequence of Daniel’s preferring his God to his King ? — he was 
cast into the den of lions. Daniel was at this time invested with 
all but royal authority ; “ he was preferred above the presidents 
and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him, and the 
king thouglit to have set him over the whole realm.” Had he 
not been persuaded that it was his religious duty to submit to 
“ the powers that be,” when such submission involved no act of 
rebellion against the supreme authority and mandate of the Al¬ 
mighty, he might have raised an insurrection in the kingdom, 


53 


and attempted at least to save his life by resistance ] but this 
holy man resigned himself without opposition to be cast into the 
den of lions ; and the God whom he served delivered him thence. 
Mark his words, ye faithless and unbelieving, ye who bow 
down to the authority of your fellow worms, and trample under 
feet the sacred laws of the Omnipotent Jehovah, who alone hath 
power to cast both body and soul into hell — “ My God hath sent 
his angels and shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt 
me, forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me.” It 
is true God does not always choose to work a miracle to save 
the lives of his faithful servants ; if he did, how could sincerity 
be fully tested ? and how could we ever have had the unequivo¬ 
cal testimony now afforded to the church by the noble army of 
martyrs, of the triumph of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ over 
the fear of man and the dread of death ? From time to time, 
God has exerted his supernatural power to deliver his saints out 
of the hand of the oppressors; he has done so often enough to 
satisfy all who put their trust in him that they shall never be 
confounded, and that all dominion in Heaven and in earth is 
vested in him. Nor let us suppose that there is less of power or 
of mercy exhibited in sustaining the martyr at the stake, and 
thus cutting short the work in righteousness and crowning him 
at once with the diadem of glory and immortality, than in 
quenching the violence of fire, or shutting the lions’ mouths, 
that Daniel and his three countrymen were not devoured by the 
flames, or destroyed by the lions. 

Let us now proceed to examine the context of the chapter 
under consideration, which contains a remarkably clear and 
beautiful exposition of Christian duty — “Bless them which per¬ 
secute you, bless and curse not. Recompense to no man evil for 
evil. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably 
with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but 
rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, vengeance is 
mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy 
hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him-drink ; for in so doing 
thou shall heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of 
evil, but overcome evil with good.” Every candid mind will 
readily acknowledge that in these preliminary remarks the apos¬ 
tle is very far from giving the slightest encouragement to a war- 


54 


like spirit; he knew that it would be impossible to live peacea¬ 
bly with all men, because those to whom he was writing were 
the objects of hatred and malevolence ; and they could not infuse 
into their enemies the spirit of Jesus with which they ought 
themselves to be clothed : he therefore tells them to live peacea¬ 
bly with all men as much as in them lay; and it was in their 
power to bless those who persecuted them ; it was in their power 
to live, as far as regarded themselves, in a spirit of peace and 
love with all men. 

“It is very instructive and interesting to recur to the period 
and the circumstances under which St. Paul wrote his epistle 
to the Romans. It was at the time when the city of Rome 
contained within herself the seeds of civil war and insurrection. 
It was addressed to Jewish as well as Gentile converts, the 
former of whom might be peculiarly liable to seek to avenge 
themselves, because when they were the chosen people of God, 
they were sometimes used as the instruments of his righteous 
vengeance upon the heathen. It was written a short time pre¬ 
vious to the dreadful persecution of Nero, in which Paul him¬ 
self perished ; he foresaw this trial of the Christian faith, and 
desired to prepare them for it, and to impress upon them the 
important lesson given by the Lord Jesus Christ. “ Resist not 
evil ; ” he entreated them to submit to the power of those who 
could kill the body, but after that have nothing more that they 
can do. How touching and how appropriate is his exhortation 
to them. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of 
God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, accepta¬ 
ble unto God.’’ 

“ The expressions “ there is no power but of God, the pow¬ 
ers that be are ordained,” or as it reads in the margin, are 
ordered “ of God,” are only equivalent with the declaration of 
our adorable Redeemer, when veiled in that mantle of flesh, 
which he had assumed for our sakes, he stood before a human 
tribunal, and submitted, for the sake of those who are despising 
the sacrifice he was then about to offer for the sins of the whole 
world, to receive from the lips of a sinful mortal that sentence 
of death which consummated the glorious plan of man’s re¬ 
demption. “ Then said Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto 
me ? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and 


55 


have power to release thee ? Jesus answered : Thou couldst 
have no power at all against me, except it were given thee fiom 
above.” The^ powers which ordained his crucifixtion were as 
much ordered of God” as the dominion of the blood-thirsty 
Nero, under whose reign this epistle was written, and written 
when the disciples of the Prince of Peace, who left an example 
in this very thing of unresisting submission, were about to be 
involved in a fearful persecution, in which their pacific princi¬ 
ples would be severely tested. The apostle desired to impress 
upon their minds the necessity of giving place or submitting 
unto wrath ; and quietly, as sheep before their shearers are dumb, 
after the example of the Lamb of God, surrender their lives 
rather than seek by any means to avenge themselves; ‘‘ who¬ 
soever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” 
The meaning of this is fully proved by-the coming and suffer¬ 
ings of Christ. The apostle Peter, in speaking of this solemn 
event, saith, “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel 
and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands 
have crucified and slain.” This deed was done in the hour and 
power of darkness ; but the plan of salvation through (he blood 
of Jesus Christ shed upon the eross, could not, according to the 
prophecy, have been accomplished but by the hands of wicked 
men ; none other could have slain the Just One. 

“ The same apostle in his first epistle, which bears the same 
date as that to the Romans, addressed to the Jewish strangers 
scattered throughout the Roman Provinces, gives the same coun¬ 
sel to them which his brother Paul had given to the Jewish and 
Gentile converts at Rome. “ Submit yourselves to every ordi¬ 
nance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as 
supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him 
for the punishment of the evil-doer, and for the praise of them 
that do well.” And he goes on to say, “ For so is the will of 
God that with well-doing ye put to silence the ignorance of fool¬ 
ish men.” Oh, my fellow immortals ! Is murder, rapine, and 
bloodshed, “ well doing? ” Let the fields of Bunker Hill, Bran¬ 
dywine, of Austerlitz and Waterloo reply—and what do they 
say ? Hearken to the deep and solemn response which comes 
up from the profound abyss of hell, in the weeping and wailing 
and gnashing of teeth, of millions whom the demon of war and 


56 


ambiuon has cast in thither. And hearken to the language of 
the same epistle : “ this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience 
sake toward God, endure grief and suffering wrongfully. For 
what glory is it, if when ye be buffetted for your faults ye take 
it patiently ? but if when ye do well as suffer for it, ye take it 
patiently, this is acceptable to God, for even hereunto were ye 
called^ because Christ also suffered for us, leaving an example 
that we should follow his steps, who did no sin, neither was guile 
found in his mouth; who, when he was reviled, reviled not 
again ; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed him¬ 
self unto him who judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare 
our sins in his own body on the tree, by whose stripes w^e are 
healed.” Can language more powerfully set forth the absolute 
necessity of leading a holy life, and of submitting, if needs be, 
to the sword of the magistrate for “ well-doing ? ” 

“ If the king or the governor commands the life of an inno¬ 
cent man to be taken away because he will not imbrue his hands 
in a brother’s blood or worship a graven image, may he not em¬ 
phatically be said to be the minister of good to him 1 ” — does 
not the sword of persecution sever the ties which bound his spirit 
here? and does not that spirit rejoice in its glorious immortality, 
in its admission to the paradise of God ? The governor and the 
Roman soldiers, the scourge and the crown of thorns, the nails 
and the cross, were the means, in the counsel of God, of consum¬ 
mating the death of Christ, which brought salvation to a lost and 
guilty world, and of preparing the way for the glorious resurrec¬ 
tion and ascension of our adorable Redeemer, who now sitteth at 
the right hand of the majesty on high, where he ever liveth to 
make intercession for the transgressors. And the magistrate is 
“ not a terror to good works, but to the evil; ” he cannot terrify 
the soul that is fixed, trusting in God ; therefore the Apostle saith, 
but if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not 
the sword in vain ; he is the minister of God, to execute wrath 
upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, 
not for wrath only but also for conscience sake.” His succeeding 
exhortation seems framed to guard the perverted reason and de¬ 
ceitful heart of man from the snare which the enemy would 
spread for him. “ Owe no man anything, but to love one ano¬ 
ther, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”' “ Thou 


67 




shall love thy neighbor as thyself.” Love worketh no ill to his 
neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” “ Put ye 
on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Can we obey these holy precepts, 
and seek the temporal and eternal destruction of those for whom 
Christ died ? Does not war bring forth exclusively the fruits of the 
flesh—which, as the apostle saith, are indeed manifest, hatred, va¬ 
riance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, envyings, murders, 
drunkenness, revelling, and such like?’ Oh, that those, e 5 /?e- 
cially the women of America, who are giving their encourage¬ 
ment and lending their aid, in any way^ to cherish the spirit of 
war in the bosoms of their countrymen, may remember the sol¬ 
emn asseveration contained in the word of God. “ Of the which 
I tell you before, as 1 also told you in time past, that they which 
do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” 

S. M. Grimke. 

To what my fair correspondent has written on the subject, I 
would only add a few remarks. If the doctrine, that the thir¬ 
teenth chapter of Romans authorized war, had been preached 
at the commencement of the American Revolution, it would have 
been more opportune than it is now. But it would have been 
a very difficult subject to handle. What would our fathers have 
done with the following, among many other passages which might 
be quoted? “ For this cause pay ye tribute also, for they are 
God’s ministers,” (fee. “ Render to all, then, due tribute to whom 
tribute is due ; custom to whom custom.” Now, could they have 
refused to pay the custom-house tribute of three pence on a 
pound of tea ? Or how could they be said to be “ subject to the 
higher powers,” while they resisted the power which the apostle 
declared to, be theordinance of God?” It is singular that the 
same passage should now be quoted in favor of war, which 
is one of the strongest arguments in the whole of revelation, to 
show that the principles of what is called ‘‘ the holy right of in¬ 
surrection” and the principles of the Christian religion are at va¬ 
riance. We must give up one or the other, for we cannot, with 
any consistency, hold to both. 


8 


58 



SECTION XVII. 

Wars of the Jews. 

I COME now to take up those objections to tlie principles of 
Peace which are drawn from the Bible. It would be of no ser¬ 
vice, to combat objections which might be drawn, either from 
scripture or reason, against wars of aggression and conquest ; 
for, however the wars of the Jews might have been pleaded in 
favor of them, there are now but few in this Christian country 
who openly contend that wars of retaliation and revenge can be 
justified by either the Old, or the New Testament; but when one 
wishes to justify such wars, they are universally called wars of 
self defence. If we had engaged in a war witl i France, to com¬ 
pel her to pay us five millions of dollars, it would have been called 
a defensive war. Gengis Khan and Bonaparte called all their 
wars defensive. The latter invaded Egypt and Russia, if we 
can believe him, only to defend himself against Great Britain. 
A duelist challenges his friend to mortal combat to defend his 
honor; and retaliatiori and revenge are compelled, by the in¬ 
creasing light of Christianity, to take refuge in the plea^of self- 
defence—the first law of nature, as it is called. I find it less dif¬ 
ficult to go to the top of the ladder and defend myself there than 
to find out the particular round at which I ouglu to stop before 
I get there. Dr. Johnson said of drinking wine, that total absti¬ 
nence was more easy to him than moderate drinking ; and it 
will be found that this principle is as applicable to the Peace cause 
as it is to the temperance cause ; and that total abstinence is the 
only ground on which temperance or peace can stand. 

The wars recorded in the Old Testament are brought as an ar¬ 
gument against our principles. It is said. If the wars of the 
Jews are justifiable, then war in general may be justified. ' 

To this objection it may be answered, that it is by no means 
clear that war was not forbidden in the Old Testament, and 
that the commands “ Thou shalt not kill,” “ Thou shalfi,not 
steal,” “ Thou shalt not covet,” do not virtually forbid war, 
which implies them all. The wars of the Israelites are to 


59 


be viewed as divine judgments on the guilty inhabitants of 
Canaan. God, who made the law, had a right to repeal or mod¬ 
ify it: and he had as much right to make use of the cliildren of 
Israel for the destruction of the Canaanites, as of earthquakes 
and pestilence. The Israelites were not allowed to make war 
without asking counsel of God ; and when they made war with¬ 
out asking counsel, they were defeated. But when he com¬ 
manded them to make war, he wrought miracles ; and the Is¬ 
raelites were sometimes only the spectators of the divine judg¬ 
ments. He caused the sea to recede and grant them a passage, 
but, by the same sea, destroyed their enemies. He rolled back 
the current of Jordan, to facilitate the invasion of Canaan. He 
caused the walls of Jericho to fall prostrate, by the use of means 
in themselves the most inefficietit. He caused an army of the 
Midianites to flee before a detachment of lamps and pitchers. He 
sent the destroying angel into the camp of the Assyrians, and in 
the morning they were all dead men. In these cases, and many 
others, the Israelites had nothing to do but to “stand still and 
see the salvation of God.” These executions of the judgments of 
God will no more justify war than the execution of a criminal 
will justify a duel, or any wanton attack of one individual 
on another, in which he takes upon himself the offices of judge, 
jury, and executioner. If one can prove the accordancy of war 
with the Christian religion by the example of the Old Testament 
saints, then he can prove, by the same example, that it is lawful 
not only to destroy our enemies when found in arms, but that 
it is lawful to invade a country which never did 2 (s any hurt, 
and destroy all the inhabitants—even the women and children : 
but “that which proves too much, proves nothing.” 

Much has, of late, been said of the blessing which Melchise- 
dec bestowed on Abram, when he returned from the slaughter of 
the kings; but I do not think that this will any more justify war 
under the Christian dispensation, than the blessing which Israel 
bestowed on the twelve patriarchs, will justify poligamy and con¬ 
cubinage, from which they sprung. The abettors of war, slavery, 
and intemperance are very fond of going to the Old Testament 
for justification ; and the abettors of polygamy, concubinage, ca¬ 
pricious divorce, and many other practices now considered incon¬ 
sistent with the Christian religion, have as good a reason to do 


GO 


the same. Allowing that the custom of vvar was not forbidden 
in the Old Testament, it does not follow that it is not forbidden in 
the New. Some things were allowed under the old dispensation, 
which are now forbidden. Many things were enjoined in the Old 
Testament from which we are now released. 

We live under a new and better covenant; and we ought to 
keep to the spirit, if not to the letter of it. When Jesus Christ 
came into the world, he gave us new commandments, such as 
“Resist not evil,” “Love your enemies,” and many more of a like 
nature, too numerous to mention. He reversed many of those pre¬ 
cepts which were “ said by them of old time.” He gave us new 
laws respecting polygamy and divorce; so that what before was 
lawful and innocent, has now become criminal; and that which 
was enjoined as a duty under the old dispensation, is considered 
as unlawful under the new. -I might mention the stoning of 
a refractory son and other cases of a like nature, the execution of 
a homicide by the avenger of blood, the marrying of a deceased 
brother’s wife in certain cases. But I do not insist on them, as it 
would require more space than 1 have to spare to give them their 
proper effect, and there is ground enough for the support of our 
principles without them. 

I might adduce many other arguments to show that the tol¬ 
eration of the custom of war, and even the express command to 
invade a foreign country under the old dispensation, can no more 
justify war under the Christian dispensation than the fact that 
polygamy and slavery were not only tolerated then, but regula¬ 
ted by divine command, would justify these customs under the 
“ new and better covenant” which we now take as the rule of 
our conduct. • 


SECTION XYIH. 

The objection^ that war is not expressly forbidden by name 

in the gospel^ considered. 

Having considered the pleas which are brought from the Old 
Testament in favor of war in my seventeenth section — all 
which pleas might with equal plausibility be brought in favor 


G1 


of slavery; concubinage, and polygamy — I now pass to those 
objections which are brought against our principles from the 
New Testament; the greatest of which is, that tear is not ex- 
'pressly forbidden^ by name^ in the gospel. 

To this we answer that the same plea might be brought in 
favor of slavery, duelling, suicide, polygamy, gambling, and a 
thousand other unchristian practices. Onr Saviour and his 
apostles did not interfere with the existing relations of society ; ' 
as that would have brought upon them the charge of opposing 
government and setting up the Messiah as an earthly monarch. 
In their preaching, they enforced such fundamental principles as 
laid the ax at the root of war, dueling, slavery, and every other 
vice. The gospel is not so much a code of laws as a constitu¬ 
tion, or statement of first principles, on which a code of laws 
might afterwards be erected, suited to every,clime and every 
age. If every vice and sin had been forbidden by name, the 
gospel would have swelled to an unwieldly bulk, only to enu¬ 
merate, describe, and forbid the sins and vices of gospel times. 
To have forbidden crimes which then had no existence, would 
only have hastened on those crimes; and if all crimes were to 
be enumerated, unenumerated crimes would have been consider¬ 
ed no crimes at all. Modern Mohammedans reason in this way 
when they indulge in the use of distilled spirits. In imitation of 
our fighting Christians, they say Rum is not expressly forbid¬ 
den, by name, in the Koran. 

Sins come in clusters. When a man commits one sin, he 
trespasses not only against one precept of the gospel, but he sins 
against many; and in some cases, all of them. When a na¬ 
tion goes to war, it is guilty of anger, revenge, covetousness, 
robbery, piracy, murder, and all those crimes which necessarily 
- enter into the very nature of war, and form the component parts 
of the direful mixture; and generally, if not always, in modern 
times, other ingredients are added, such' as Sabbath-breaking, 
drunkenness, profanity, dueling, licentiousness, and a thousand 
nameless and shameless vices ; and there is not one single in¬ 
dividual virtue which is spoken of with approbation by Jesus 
or his apostles, that can possibly be mixed with the poisonous 
ingredients of that Circean cup, any more than oil will mix with 
water. How can meekness, mercy, love of enemies, forgiveness 


/ 



of injuries, be practiced in war ? How can those who are poor 
in spirit, peacemakers, who resist not evil, who do to others as 
they would be done by, who Hee from persecution rather than 
resist it, who feed their enemies when hungry and give them 
drink when thirsty, who bless those who curse them, and pray 
for those who despitefully use them and persecute them, who 
when smitten on one cheek, turn the other, who recompense ^ 
no man evil for evil, who avenge not themselves but ratht^ 
give place unto wrath, who are not overcome of evil, but who 
overcome evil with good, who are not vainglorious, but are long- 
suflTering, gentle, meek; who, as they liave opportunity, do good 
unto all men, who put away all bitterness and wrath-and 
clamor and evil speaking, who are kind to one another, tender¬ 
hearted, forgiving one another, who walk in love, who do noth¬ 
ing through strife and vainglory, but who, in lowliness of mind, 
esteem others better than themselves, who put on bowels of 
mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long suffer¬ 
ing, (fee., who follow peace with all men, and abstain from all 
appearance of evil, and finally — for I miglit fill a volume with 
similar texts — have the spirit of Jesus in them, and suffer for 
enemies rather than make them suffer, and die that they may 
live,— how can the practice of any of these Christian virtues 
find any place in a camp? Every one knows they would be 
drummed out of it as nuisances, or more likely the person who 
should dare to practice them would be executed as a traitor. 

In fact, as said the celebrated Dr. Chalmers, “ War reverses, 
with respect to its objects, all the rules of morality. It is noth¬ 
ing less than a temporary repeal of all the principles of virtue. 

It is a system, out of which almost all the virtues are excluded, 
and in which nearly all the vices are included.” 

‘‘Those who defend war,” says Erasmus, “must defend the 
dispositions which lead to war, and these dispositions are abso¬ 
lutely forbidden by the gospel.” Now, if every ingredient, part, 
and parcel of war is condemned by the gospel, it is going fur¬ 
ther to condemn the whole system than though it had been ex¬ 
pressly said Tho'd shall'not go to war. For the inqtjiry then 
would be, what is war — what is meant by the word war 7 Some 
would say, wars of ambition and conquest are only meant, oth¬ 
ers would say, wars of retaliation and revenge also are meant; 


G3 


and thus there would be more disputing about what wars were 
allowed and what forbidden, what is war and what is not, than 
there is now — just as men now dispute about the meaning 
of the words in the divine commands, “ Thou shall not kill,” 
“Swear not at all.” By which latter command, swearing “ is 
expressly forbidden by name ; ” yet men do not regard it. If a 
physician were called to a man dying of a mortification, and he 
should pronounce that every limb of the body was mortified, we 
should consider the sentence more decisive than though he had 
barely said a mortification had taken place. 

Saint James tells us that “ war proceeds from the lusts which 
war in our members.” This text alone woidd condemn war. 
But if this text, and all the texts which I have quoted above, and 
all that might be quoted, do not condemn war, then I should like 
to know how our opponents would condemn slavery, polygamy, 
suicide, dueling, gambling, dealing in rum, and such things, by 
the gospel. 


SECTION XIX. 

The objection, that the 'precepts of our Saviour are only of 
“ private interpret at ion f considered. 

Most Christians allow that the precepts which I quoted in my 
tenth section, as forbidding war, and many others of a like 
nature, are binding on individuals; and that we ought to obey 
them, so far as they respect our neighbors and countrymen ; 
but they deny that they are binding on nations, or are to extend 
to our conduct toward foreigners who are separated from us by 
some range of mountains, sea, or river, or an imaginary line of 
latitude. But where do they find their authority ? certainly not 
in the Bible. When Jesus was asked, “Who is my neighbor?” 
the Jew was answered that it was the Samaritan, his most 
deadly national enemy, on whom he was always ready to call 
down fire from Heaven to consume him. ' 

If any man should say that an act which would be a sin in 
an individual would be no sin in a nation, I should like to 
know what amount of numbers constitutes a nation. Were 


64 


Robinson Crusoe and bis man Friday a'nation? If not, when 
would they have begun to be a nation, provided successive ships 
had been cast away on his island, and successive savages en¬ 
slaved ? How populous must the island become before their 
numbers would sanction sin ? The republic of San Marino 
has been called a nation for many centuries ; and yet its num¬ 
bers have not exceeded three or four thousand. Many of our 
Indian tribes are much more numerous ; and yet our govern¬ 
ment does not allow them to be nations only when it makes 
treaties with them; but never when it breaks those treaties. Is 
slavery no sin because it is allowed by the nation ? There is 
an absurdity in the objection which never can be taken from 
it until the precise number to which a family, a tribe, or a gang 
must arrive, before they can be called a nation, shall be de¬ 
termined on. 

In an absolute monarchy, the king himself, a single man, 
declares war, or as Frederic the Great expresses it, “ Kings make 
war, and leave it to some laborious civilian to assign a plausible 
pretext for it.” In the day of judgment, will God excuse a man for 
breaking his commands, because he wears a crown and has mur¬ 
der on a large scale? With man, “one murder makes a villain,— 
millions a hero but “ God seeth not as man seeth.” In England, 
a limited monarchy, the king has power, of his own authority, to 
declare war; though perhaps he never exercises this power with¬ 
out the concurrence of his cabinet. If the cabinet concur, though 
the numbe'r who authorize robbery and murder be somewhat en¬ 
larged, will the addition of five or six persons excuse the king or 
themselves? Even according to the common consent of writers 
on the law of nations, every one who engages in an unjust war 
is a murderer. But with consistent Christians, all wars are un¬ 
just, or according to Franklin. “ there never was a good war or a 
bad peace.” But what shall we say to republics, where every 
man gives his vote and his sanction to war, or withholds them, 
according to his free will ? can a republican who sanctions war 
by voting for those who declare it, claim the exemption of num¬ 
bers to screen him from the guilt of war? The answer is too 
manifest to require an argument. 

It is argued in favor of war, that what wmuld be criminal in 
an individual would be right in a nation, because nations have no 


65 


tribunal to which they may appeal; and unless they take the re¬ 
dress of grievances into their own hands, they must go unredressed ; 
but an individual has such a tribunal. I need not answer that, 
if nations have no such tribunal, it is their own fault, for there 
is another consideration which, at once and forever, overthrows 
the argument of our opponents, which is this : The gospel does 
not enjoin on us to “ render to no man evil for evil,” because we 
may call on the magistrate to do it for us ; but because it enjoins 
on us the practice of forbearance, love to enemies, and the divine 
principle of overcoming evil with good. 

There is but little sincerity in making this objection, wdiich is 
used to evade the force of truth rather than to elicit it; for our op¬ 
ponents are always asking, “ What would you do if assailed by 
an assassin ?” (fcc. appealing to our animal feelings rather than 
to our judgment, and thus attempting to justify nations by ficti¬ 
tious cases applicable to individvals, while the whole force of their 
argument rests on the assumption, that what would be sin in an 
individual, would be right in a nation. 


SECTION XX, 

The injunction^ of John the Baptist to the soldiers, to be con¬ 
tent with their ivages, considered. 

One of the principal arguments drawn from the New Testa¬ 
ment, on'which the defenders of war rest their vindication, is ta¬ 
ken from the remarks of John the Baptist to the soldiers who came 
to him, saying, “And what shall we do ? And he said unto them, 
Do violence to no man ; neither accuse any falsely ; and he con¬ 
tent with your wagesP (Luke iii. 14.) It is is argued from this 
passage, that John allowed the soldiers to take their wages, and 
thereby sanctioned war, 

1. I might easily evade this argument, by pleading that the 
ministration of John was no part of the Christian dispensation, 
which had not yet commenced ; and according to the declaration 
of our Lord, he who was least in the kingdom of Heaven was 
greater than John the Baptist: but as some sects of Christians 
think the authority of John to be equal to that of any of the 

9 


66 


apostles, I admit it, for argument sake. But the apostles them¬ 
selves were not fully aware of the peaceful nature of the religion 
of Jesus Christ until “ the day of Pentecost was fully come,” when 
they w’ere filled with the “ Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven.” 
This is evident from their desire to call down fire from Heaven 
to consume a wdiole village of the Samaritans, when they were 
rebuked by their Master, who said to them, ‘‘Ye know not what 
manner of spirit ye are of, for the Son of Man came not to destroy 
men’s lives but to save them.” That they expected, in Christ, a 
temporal monarch, is evident from two of their number bespeak¬ 
ing the chief places of honor, and that they miglit sit, the one on 
his right hand and the other on his left, in his kingdom, and 
from their asking him after his resurrection, “ Wilt thou restore 
again the * kingdom unto Israel ?” After the apostles were in¬ 
spired by the Holy Ghost, they never gave the least countenance 
to war in any form ; but all their precepts inculcated a spirit di¬ 
rectly the opposite to war, in every particular. 

2. A candid inquirer after truth from the word of God does 
not split texts apart, and, taking that part which suits him, reject 
the other. By this means, the Bible may be made to say almost 
anything. In this case, take the whole sentence together, and 
what does it say ? “ Do violence to no mmiP Now, if all the 
soldiers in the world would obey the injunction of John the Bap¬ 
tist, and do violence to no man, wars would cease. The Roman 
soldiers who came to John were stationed in a conquered country 
to keep the inhabitants in subjection. In this case, if they did 
not commit robbery and violence, it would have been a rare in¬ 
stance in those days, and not a very common one in ours. They 
also assisted the publicans in collecting the tribute-money ; and 
it is probable, that among other acts of oppression, they accused 
'pcoiple falsely^ of not having paid their tax, and thus extorted 
money from them. Hence the injunction of John, that they 
should not commit robbery, but be content with their wages, was 
very appropriate. 

3. These were Roman soldiers, and consequently idolaters; 
and idolatry constituted a part of their military duty, as they 
were obliged to worship their standards and the image of Ceesar. 
If the injunction of John, to be content with their wages, would 
justify war, it would also justify idolatry; and it would jus- 


67 


tify all the conquests, tyranny, and oppression of pagan Rome. 
But, it is asked, Wliy did not John take this opportunity to con¬ 
demn the practice of war? In addition to what has been already 
said about his own light and knowledge on the subject, 1 might 
as reasonably ask, why he did not take this opportunity to con¬ 
demn idolatry, polygamy, unnatural lust, licentiousness, and all 
the horrible vices of the Roman camp? His silence on the 
subject does not prove that he approved of \:ar, any move than 
its accompanying vices. Certainly, his injunction, “Do vi¬ 
olence to no man,” goes as far to condemn war as any other re¬ 
mark of his to the soldiers did to discountenance any other sin : 
and the friends of peace could quote the whole verse in their fa¬ 
vor with much more plausibility than the defenders of war; but 
they do not w’ant it, as they have enough without it to satisfy 
any unprejudiced mind. 

4. It is a principle of exegesis, generally allowed by theologi¬ 
ans, that scripture should never be so interpreted as to contradict 
itself. Now this passage, and one other, relating to the two 
swords, (Luke xxii: 36) which I shall consider in my next, are 
the only two texts, taken from the gospel, which, for many years, 
I have heard quoted in defence of war; and if these be sufficient 
to justify war, then our Saviour’s sermon on the mount, and all 
his subsequent precepts of a peaceful nature, together wdlh his ex¬ 
ample and the precepts and example of the apostles after the day 
of Pentecost, must go for nothing. So much do the abettors of 
war call on us to sacrifice, that they ma}'^ be enabled to support a 
custom which has, from the murder of Abel to the present day, 
covered the earth with blood and tears and ashes, and made it 
to resound with lamentation and mourning and wo; and sent 
millions of precious souls to endless perdition. . 


SECTION XXL 

The text^ He that hath no sword let him sell his garment 

and buy 07ie, considered. 

I NOW come to the text on which the abettors of war chiefly 
rely for defence. It is found in Luke xxii. 36. “ He that hath 


68 


no sword let him sell his garment and buy one.” “Here,” say 
our opponents, “notwithstanding all the prophecies which pre¬ 
dicted our Saviour as the Prince of Peace, who gave his back 
to the smiters and his cheeks to them tliat plucked off the hair, 
who hid not his face from shame and spitting, who was brought 
as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer is 
dumb, so he opened not his mouth; who liad done no violence, 
neither was any deceit in his moutli ; (see Isaiah 1. 7-9,) and 
under the influence of whose principles the nations should learn 
war no more ; (see Isaiah ii. 4, and Micah iv. 3;) notwithstand¬ 
ing that his precepts and example had hitherto been eminently 
pacific, he did now, at last, by this single sentence, authorize 
violence, bloodshed, and war !” I confess the accusation appears 
to me like infidelity and blasphemy ; and I grieve that the prev¬ 
alence of depravity in the world, and unbelief in the church, 
should make it necessary to clear our blessed Saviour’s character 
from a charge of such gross inconsistency. But as it is, I must 
proceed to the task “ more in sorrow than in anger.” 

It is very certain that these swords were not for defence, for 
the following reasons : — 

1. When the disciple^ replied, “ Lord, behold here are two 
swords,” “ He said unto them. It is enough.” Now it is certain, 
that two swords were not “ enough ” for twelve men, if they had 
any intention of defending themselves by physical force. 

2. When Peter did take one of these two swords in his rash 
zeal to defend his Master, so far from approving of his conduct, 
Jesus rebuked him, and healed the ear which Peter had smitten 
off. 

3. He had no need of two swords for defence, who could com¬ 
mand “ more than twelve legions of angels.” 

4. The apostles and their immediate successors did not un¬ 
derstand the abovenamed passage as authorizing war, either 
offensive or defensive ; for we have no record in the canon of 
of scripture that any one of them did ever, after that memorable 
niglit on which Jesus prohibited the use of the sword to his dis¬ 
ciples, take the sword, even for defence ; though there is no 
example in history, if we except that of the Jews, where a sect 
has been so persecuted and oppressed. And none would have 
so good a right, judging after the manner of men, to take the 


69 


sword as they. And this was not owing to cowardice, but prin¬ 
ciple, and a firm belief that the Cliristian religion forbids the 
use of the sword for any purposes of bloodshed ; for in luany 
piovinces of the Roman empire, the Chris(ians_were a large 
minority, and in some a majority of (he populalion. Ancierit 
fatliers of the clmrch and ecclesiastical history confirm this fact, 
which I could prove by manifold quotations, if I had room ; 
but two remarks must suffice. 1. When Celsus, the great ene¬ 
my of Christianity, in the second century, accused the Christians 
of refusing to bear arms, even in case the empire was invaded 
by the barbarians, Origen, one of the most eminent Christian 
fathers of the day, in answer to Celsus, does not deny a fact of 
such general notoriety, but justifies the refusal of the Christians> 
on the ground that it was not lawful for them to bear arms, 
and inconsistent with their religion. 2. Gibbon, in his “ Decline 
and P^all of the Roman Empire,” says of the early Christians — 
whom he seems to hate almost as much as Celsus did — “Nor 
could their humane ignorance be convinced, that it was lawful 
on any occasion to shed the blood of our fellow-creatures, either 
by the sword of justice or that of icar^ even though their crimi¬ 
nal or hostile attempts should threaten the peace and safety of 
the whole community.” (Chap. xv. fourth cause.) When Chris¬ 
tianity became corrupted by an union with the state, Christians 
took the sword ; and they not only perished by the sword, but 
they brought a legion of corruptions into the church by means 
of war; and we now see but the bare dawning of the refor¬ 
mation. 

5. If we put the construction on the passage which our op¬ 
ponents contend for, we must do violence to all the peaceful 
precepts of Christ and his holy apostles, as well as to their ex¬ 
ample, and the example of the primitive Christians, that “ noble 
army of martyrs ” who suffered public execution sooner than 
take the sword for any consideration whatever, and also the 
obvious meaning of the prophecies which foretold the pacific 
character of the Messiah and his religion ; and thus destroy the 
most incontestible proof of the truth of our holy religion, and 
leave the world without any revelation from Heaven, but one 
inconsistent with itself. 

But our opponents, with great confidence, ask “Why were the 


70 


disciples commanded to sell their garments and buy swords, if 
they were not to use them ? ” We have, I think, plainly proved 
that it was not to justify war, offensive or defensive, and that 
ought to satisfy them. There are difficulties in the scriptures, 
which neither they nor we can solve, in the present state of im¬ 
perfection ; but I will hazard one conjecture, in addition to the 
other glosses which have been given on this passage, either of 
which would be more in harmony with the gospel than that 
which our opponents contend for. Our Saviour often used fig¬ 
urative expressions, which were not fully comprehended by his 
disciples until they were explained by him. Such was his in¬ 
junction : “ Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees 
and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves 
saying. It is because we have taken no bread.” (Matt. xvi. 6, 
7.) In this instance, the Saviour explained his meaning to tliem. 
In the case of the two swords, for wise reasons, he left them in an 
error for a while. In a few hours he would practically show his 
meaning. The apostles kept the two swords with them. They 
were “enough”—if not for defence — to show his meaning. 
And when one of them was used, He rebuked liim wlio used it, 
healed the wound, and gave this his last commandment before 
his crucifixion: “Put up again thy sword into his place,” with 
this denunciation, “for all they that take the sword shall perish 
by the sw^ord.” (Matt. xxvi. 52.) Our Saviour’s advent into 
the world was hailed by songs of angels, singing “ Glory to God 
in the highest, and on earth Peace, good will toward men.” 
(Luke ii. 4.) His first public discourse was full of Peace; his 
last command before he suffered, was, “ Put up thy sword ;” his 
last denunciation was on those who used it; and his last prayer 
was for his enemies: thus producing a beautiful harmony 
through the whole of his ministration ; which harmony our 
opponents are laboring to destroy. 

But our opponents still reply, “ How came these two swords 
among the apostles?” To this we answer. In that warlike 
age, every man had a sword ; and a sword being always at hand, 
it would be used for many purposes which in this peaceful age 
and country we do not think of — just as rum is, or has been, 
used for many purposes which the next generation will hardly 
think of. It is not probable, that all the apostles had thrown 


71 


away their swords; but some two or three of them might have 
been kept for useful purposes. Now, if it should happen that a 
(Quaker fishing-boat should be captured by a man-of-war, would 
the captor be justified in treating a crew of eleven men as war¬ 
riors because two fowling-pieces were found on board the prize, 
though they might have been old muskets, and formerly used 
in war? Beside, the apostles were not yet indoctrinated in the 
peaceful principles of the gospel. If they had been, they would 
not have fallen under the just rebuke of their Master for asking 
his permission to call down fire from Heaven to consume the 
inhabitants of a Samaritan village, or smitten a poor servant and 
cut ofif his ear. In both cases, our Saviour showed his disciples 
that they knew not what spirit they were of; and many of his 
disciples of the present day are under the same mistake, and de¬ 
serve the same rebuke. 


SECTION XXII. 

Further objections answered. 

I HAVE now taken up every objection, of every kind, which 
has of late years been brought against the principles of Peace, 
when carried to the farthest extent by the friends of Peace, either 
in this country or abroad. There are a few others, drawn from 
the gospel, which I have not known to' be advanced for-many 
years; but as they may come up again, and as I do not wish to 
leave my work unfinished, I think it best to give them a passing 
notice. 

. 1. One of them is the expression of Christ concerning the cen¬ 
turion who came to him requesting him to heal a servant. Christ 
said of the centurion, “I have not found so great faith, no, not 
in Israel.” It has been argued from this, that Jesus did not dis¬ 
approve of the occupation of the Roman soldier. To this it may 
be answered, — 1. That the commendation of Christ was on 
the faith of the centurion in the ability and willingness of Jesus 
to heal an absent person barely by his word, and not on his 
profession. Rahab, the harlot of Jericho, was commended by 
Paul for her faith^ manifested in receiving the spies; but I never 


72 


heard that any one justified her profession on that account, 
though there would be as good a reason as our opponents have. 
2. The Messiah did not directly interfere with the existing 
relations of society. He left polygamy, slavery, war, and a 
thousand other sins without any pointed rebuke; but he estab¬ 
lished principles, which, if applied, will ultimately destroy them 
all. It is our duty to make that application. 3. If Christ 
was silent as to the profession of the centurion, so he was as to 
his religionand the Roman soldier was without doubt an idol¬ 
ater. 4. If the silence of our Saviour on the occupation of 
the centurion would justify any war, it would also justify the 
cruel, unjust, and unprovoked wars of the Roman armies, of 
which the centurion was a part. 

2. Another objection is founded on the case of Cornelius, 
another centurion, to whom Peter was sent to impart the gospel 
to him. It is said by our opponents that it is nowhere recorded 
in scripture that he quitted the profession of arms. We answer 
1. That many publicans and harlots were also converted, but it 
is not recorded that they quitted their occupation. We have 
however good reason to conclude that they did ; and we have 
as good reason to conclude that Cornelius did, as that Rahab 
did, or any harlot or publican, after they came to a knowledge 
of the truth ; but nothing is expressly stated in one case more than 

. in another. 2. The fourth answer in -the preceding paragraph 
is equally applicable here. 

3. Another objection is, ‘‘ Christ paid tribute-money to the 
Roman emperor, and thereby supported his wars, which he would 
not have done if war were contrary to his religion.” To this 
it may be answered, that though a part of the tribute-money 
went to support the Roman armies in carrying on their cruel, 
unjust, and rapacious wars of conquest, a part also went to sup¬ 
port the voluptuous vices of the Roman emperors, gladiatorial 
shows, and the worship of idols. If this objection w’ould justify 
one of these uses of the tribute-money, it would also justify the 
others. 

I have now answered all the objections against the principles 
' of Peace which I can recollect, except the doctrine of expediency, 
which is too absurd, when brought against the precepts of the 
gospel, to deserve notice. 


73 


If the principles of Peace are correct and incontrovertible, why 
have they no greater effect in making converts to our cause, or 
inducing those who are already converted, ‘‘to strengthen tlieir 
brethren,” by making sacrifices, both of time and money, 
to advance the cause of truth ? To the first part of this 
question there is but one answer. The prejudices of education 
prevent tlie Protestant Christian from seeing the truth on this 
subject, just as similar prejudices prevent the Rojnan Catholic 
from seeing tlie absurdities of his creed after they have been 
pointed out to him and confuted by the plain precepts of the 
gospel. We wonder at ilie obstinate prejudices of the Catholic^ 
which make him shut his eyes against the light, while we are 
utterly insensible to our own. As to the second part of the ques¬ 
tion, let every convert to the cause of Peace look into his own 
heart for an answer. 

Having now gone over all the objections against the principles 
of Peace, so far as I am acquainted witli them, and answered 
them to the best of my ability, consistently with the small space 
which circumstances would allow, I should now take m}^ leave 
of the public, were it not that I wish to show that the difficulties 
are not all on our side; and I wish, in one section more, to state 
those difficulties, and to ask such of my opponents as are pro¬ 
fessors of religion, how they can answer them. I especially re¬ 
quest the attention of those real Christians — and there are 
many—wlio yet endeavor to keep up a military spirit in the 
community, if not in the church, by “all the pomp and circum¬ 
stance of war” displayed or attempted in our militia system — 
thus doing all they can to retard the day when the sword shall 
be beaten into a ploughshare and the nations learn war no more. 

SECTION XXIII. 

Difficulty of reconciling the practice of loar, either offensive 
or defensive^ with the spirit and precepts of the gospel. 

Having, on my part, answered all the objections which are 
brought against the principles of Peace to the best of my ability, 
though not so fully as I should have done had I not thought it 
10 


4 


necessary to study brevity, I now claim the privilege of turning 
the tables on my opponents, and call on all fighting Christians to 
defend themselves. I call on all those Christians who advocate 
the consistency of war with Christianity, to answer the following 
objections to the war system, with the same candor with which 
I have answered their objections to the principles of Peace, or to 
give up their sinful practices of fermenting the war spirit in the 
community. The public will take their silence as a confession 
of their inability ; and I leave it to their own consciences, to re¬ 
concile their conduct with their Christian profession. It is abso¬ 
lutely absurd in a professor of the Christian religion to continue 
in a course of conduct which he cannot defend ; and it is as 
wicked as it is absurd. 

Tlie difficulties, on the side of the advocates of war, I have ar¬ 
ranged in the following order, and request that they may be taken 
up in course, and answered one by one. 

1. The Old Testament plainly predicts that, by the influence 
of the religion of the promised Messiah, the time shall come 
when the nations shall learn war no more. How then can war 
be consistent with Christianity ? It is true, we have no such di¬ 
rect promise of the cessation of slavery; but all who believe that 
slavery will eventually cease, believe that that glorious reforma¬ 
tion will be brought about by the general diflfusion of Christianity. 
But how can the general dilfusion of Christianity abolish slavery, 
if slavery be consistent with Christianity? Much more reason 
have we to ask. How can the general prevalence of Clu'is- 
tianity abolish the custom of ivar, if the custoin of war he 
consistent with Christianity 7 

2. The precepts of Christ and his apostles teach us to love our 
enemy, to feed him when hungry, and to give him drink when 
thirsty — to return good for evil, and to overcome evil with good ; 
and the example of Christ teaches us to suffer death for our ene¬ 
mies, rather than make them suffer. I ask, how war can be 
carried on agreeably to these precepts and this example? If it 
be answered that these precepts are of “ private interpretation’’ 
and do not apply to nations, I ask, What authority is there for 
such an assertion 7 

3. All Christians expect a millenium when wars and fightings 
will cease. I ask, are there any duties which will be incum- 


75 


bent on Christians in the millenium, that are not incumbent on 
them now ? If any, what ? and how are they to be promul¬ 
gated ? 

4. If the church, in Christian countries, gives its sanction to 
any war, are we to expect the heathen to be converted to a higher 
standard of Christianity than that which is adopted by the church? 

If the church shall allow converts from heathenism to fierht with 
each other, like Christian nations, will the millenium ever come 
until the church shall raise the standard of Christianity higher 
than it has ever yet been raised since the times of primitive Chris¬ 
tianity ? 

5. If the practice of war be consistent with Christianity, why 
did not the apostles and primitive Christians resort to war to de¬ 
fend themselves, or at least recommend such a resort when they 
should become stronger ? If they did so, let our opponents pro¬ 
duce the evidence of it. If they did not, w’ere they right or 
wM’ong ? If right, why should we not follow" their example ? 

6. Our Saviour said, “ Blessed are the peacemakers, for they 
shall be called the children of God.” I ask our opponents. Do 
they expect ever to receive this blessing, and how are they to ob¬ 
tain it b}" their present conduct? 

7. If it be unlawful for a Christian to go to war, is it not sinful 
in them to manufacture or sell arms, or learn the art of war? 

8. Precepts may be found in the gospel suitable for every sta-- 
tion and occupation in life, in which a Christian may be lawfully 
engaged. I challenge our opponents to produce a single com¬ 
mand or precept given by our Saviour or any of his apostles, 
which is applicable to the occupation of a soldier, and evidently 
intended for his use. Now, if the profession of a soldier be con¬ 
sistent with Christianity, can our opponents tell us w’hy a soldier 
was left, w'ithoLit any precept or rule for his conduct but such as 
w"Ould disarm him ? 

9. If there be a single virtue commended in the gospel, wdiich 
a soldier may not dispense, with, and yet not lose his rank and 
standing as a soldier, I wash our opponents to name it. Or if 
there be a single vice forbidden in the gospel, which a soldier may 
not practice in perfect consistency with the principles of war, I 
wish the advocates of w'ar to point it out. 

If any of our opponents w'ill undertake to answer these objec- 


76 


tions (o their own system, I shall be happy to give their answers 
a most respectful notice. And I beg of them to give us texts from 
the gospel, and not their own reasoning only, and whole texts— 
whole verses or sentences. 

Before I close the present series of essays in fovor of the blessed 
cause of Peace, I would just remind my readers, that I have no 
pretensions to theological knowledge or subtelty of reasoning. 
The things which 1 have penned in these essays, appeared to me 
very plain, and I have expressed them in a plain manner. If 
there are any weak points in my defence of the principles of 
Peace, let them be attributed to the weakness of the advocate and 
not of the cause. I beg,the prayers of .all Christians, of every 
denomination, that my feeble efforts, in behalf of the glorious 
cause of Peace, may be crowned with success, and to God be all 
the glory. 


P. S. Answers may be directed to “A Layman,” and sent free of expense to the care of 
Whipple & Damrell, 9 Cornhil), Boston, where this and other tracts of the American Peace 
Society may be obtained by the churches and congregations contributing to tlie funds of the 
Society, and at a moderate price by others. All answers to the questions asked in the last 
section of this tract wiil bo attended to, either in a separate pamphlet or in a second edition of 
this, if send in before the first of October next. 

Boston, April 20, 1837. 


/ 


1 


library of congress 








































